Central Washington University, Decision 13032 (PSRA, 2019)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Edward Earl Younglove III, Attorney at Law, Younglove & Coker, P.L.L.C., for the Washington Federation of State Employees.

Gil Hodgson, Assistant Attorney General, Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson, for Central Washington University.

On December 10, 2018, the Washington Federation of State Employees (union) filed a unit clarification petition seeking to add certain employees at Central Washington University (employer) to the union’s existing bargaining unit of custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance, and security employees.  Specifically, the union seeks to include the engineering assistants, program coordinators, forms and records analyst, cartographer, and procurement & supply specialists in the Facilities Management Department.

Hearing Officer Dario de la Rosa conducted an investigation of the union’s petition.  During that investigation, he informed the parties that the at-issue employees were subject to previous litigation before this agency.  Central Washington University, Decision 12935 (PSRA, 2018).  In that case, it was determined that the only appropriate bargaining unit for the at-issue employees was the union’s bargaining unit.  Id.  Here, adding the petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees to the existing bargaining unit is appropriate because it would result in vertical representation within the department.  The positions are added to the bargaining unit without the need for an election.

BACKGROUND

The facts of this case are identical to the facts described in Central Washington University, Decision 12935.  The employer is a four-year university located in Ellensburg, Washington.  The employer’s Operations Division is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the physical and technological infrastructure of the employer’s campus.  The division offers police services, parking services, environmental health and safety services, facilities management services, information services, and information security.

The Operations Division includes the Facilities Management Department, which is responsible for the maintenance of the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.  The department also oversees construction projects and plans future campus improvements.  The Facilities Management Department is headed by Interim Associate Vice President Shane Scott.

The existing bargaining unit comprises “[a]ll full-time and regular part-time non‑supervisory custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance and security employees, excluding supervisors and all other employees.”  Central Washington University, Decision 10375 (PSRA, 2009).  The bargaining unit includes employees in the Facilities Management Department and all of the nonsupervisory employees in the department’s Grounds, Custodial Services Operations – Academic, and Custodial Services Operations – Auxiliary sections.  The bargaining unit also includes most of the nonsupervisory employees in the Planned & Preventative Maintenance, Administrative Services, and Non-Maintenance Services Sections of the Facilities Management Department.  Approximately 182 employees are currently included in the bargaining unit.

The Planned & Preventative Maintenance Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises approximately 45 employees in ten different work groups.  The Planned & Preventative Maintenance Section is structured as follows:

Eight of the work groups—Mechanical/Weld, Electrical, Area, Boiler, Environmental Management Control System, Floor, Paint, and Abatement—are wholly represented by the union.  The two‑person Lock Shop work group includes one employee who has historically been included in the union’s bargaining unit.  The other position, a program coordinator, is one of the petitioned‑for employees.  The Maps work group contains one employee in the engineering assistant 1 job class, one employee in the engineering assistant 2 job class, and one employee in the cartographer job class.  These three employees are not currently represented but are on the list of petitioned‑for employees.

The Administrative Services Section of the Facilities Management Department includes eight employees; three of those employees are currently represented by the union and four are on the list of petitioned-for employees.  The represented positions include one employee in the truck driver 2 job class and two employees in the equipment technician 3 and 4 job classes.  The Administrative Services Section is structured as follows:

The Non-Maintenance Services Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises four employees.  Three of those employees are in the maintenance mechanic 2 job class and are included in the bargaining unit; one employee is in the construction project coordinator 2 job class and is on the list of petitioned-for employees.^[1]  The Non-Maintenance Services Section is structured as follows:

The union also seeks to include the nonsupervisory program coordinator that reports to the program support supervisor 2 in the Facilities Management Department.

ANALYSIS

Applicable Legal Standards

The determination of appropriate bargaining units is a function delegated to this agency by the legislature.  City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978), aff’d, International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 1052 v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 29 Wn. App. 599 (1981), review denied, 96 Wn.2d 1004 (1981).  The goal in making bargaining unit determinations is to group together employees who have sufficient similarities (community of interest) to indicate that they will be able to bargain effectively with their employer.  Quincy School District, Decision 3962-A (PECB, 1993).  When making bargaining unit determinations, the Commission seeks to avoid fragmentation and potential work jurisdiction disputes.  King County, Decision 6696 (PECB, 1999).  Bargaining unit determinations are made on a case-by-case basis.  King County, Decision 5910-A (PECB, 1997).

Included in this agency’s authority to determine an appropriate bargaining unit is the power to modify that unit, upon request, through a unit clarification proceeding.  University of Washington, Decision 11590 (PSRA, 2012), aff’d, Decision 11590-A (PSRA, 2013); see also Pierce County, Decision 7018-A (PECB, 2001).  Unit clarification cases are governed by the provisions of Chapter 391-35 WAC.  The general purpose of the unit clarification process is to provide this agency as well as the parties to a collective bargaining relationship a mechanism to make changes to an appropriate bargaining unit based upon a change of circumstances.  See, e.g., Toppenish School District, Decision 1143-A (PECB, 1981) (outlining the procedures to remove supervisors from existing bargaining units).  Unit clarification proceedings can be used to determine the bargaining unit placement of newly-created positions.  WAC 391-35-020(1)(a).

In making bargaining unit determinations, the Commission considers “the duties, skills, and working conditions of the employees; the history of collective bargaining; the extent of organization among the employees; the desires of the employees; and the avoidance of excessive fragmentation.”  RCW 41.80.070.  The criteria are not applied on a strictly mathematical basis.  King County, Decision 5910-A.  Not all of the factors will arise in every case and any one factor could be more important than another, depending on the facts.  Renton School District, Decision 379-A (EDUC, 1978), aff’d, Renton Education Association v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 101 Wn.2d 435 (1984).

An accretion may be ordered when changed circumstances lead to the existence of positions that logically belong only in one existing bargaining unit.  Id.; City of Auburn, Decision 4880-A (PECB, 1995).  In order for an accretion to be directed, the resulting unit must be appropriate.  Pierce County, Decision 6051-A (PECB, 1998).  An accretion will be denied if the positions could stand on their own as a separate bargaining unit or could appropriately be placed in any other bargaining unit.  City of Auburn, Decision 4880-A.  An accretion cannot be ordered where the number of employees to be added to the bargaining unit is so large as to call into question the union’s majority status in the enlarged unit.  Port of Seattle, Decision 11131 (PORT, 2011).  The party proposing accretion bears the burden of demonstrating that conditions for accretion are present.  State – Enterprise Services (Contracts & Legal Services), Decision 11652-A (PSRA, 2013); City of Auburn, Decision 4880-A.

Application of Standards

The petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees are appropriately included in the existing bargaining unit based upon the extent of organization in the employer’s workforce and avoidance of fragmentation.  The duties, skills, and working conditions of the petitioned-for employees also support the conclusion that they share a community of interest with the employees in the existing bargaining unit.

An analysis of the extent of organization among employees involves comparing the petitioned-for employees with the employer’s overall workforce.  Washington State University, Decision 10115 (PSRA, 2008).  The application of this factor is designed to ensure that an employee or group of employees is not stranded in a unit too small to effectively exercise its right to collectively bargain.  Id.  The extent of organization in the Facilities Management Department and its sections demonstrates a preference for vertical bargaining unit configurations.  For example, the union’s existing bargaining unit includes all of the nonsupervisory employees in the Grounds, Custodial Services Operations – Academic, and Custodial Services Operations – Auxiliary sections of the department.

Other bargaining units in the employer’s workforce are also structured vertically.  In 2008 this agency certified a bargaining unit that was defined by job class and department.  Central Washington University, Decision 9963 (PSRA, 2008).  Over time, the duties of some of the positions in the bargaining unit changed, and the employer reclassified those positions to job titles not included in the bargaining unit description.  These changes resulted in conflicts between the employer and bargaining agent over which positions were included in the bargaining unit.  Central Washington University, Decision 10215-B (PSRA, 2010).  The parties requested that the bargaining unit be modified to a vertical structure defined by job function as opposed to job title.  Id.

Including the petitioned-for Facilities Management Department employees to the existing bargaining unit will complete the vertical structures for the Planned & Preventative Maintenance, Administrative Services, and Non-Maintenance Services sections and prevent the possibility of fragmentation in the employer’s workforce.  As a result of the modification that occurred through Central Washington University, Decision 10215‑B, several of the petitioned-for employees in the instant case were removed from the bargaining unit certified in Central Washington University, Decision 9963.^[2]  The bargaining unit configurations in which these positions could be included are now limited.  Requiring these positions to organize separately would result in a proliferation of bargaining units in the employer’s workforce and would create work jurisdiction issues in the Facilities Management Department.

Finally, the duties, skills, and working conditions of the petitioned-for employees also support a finding that those positions could only appropriately be included in the bargaining unit.  The employees in the Facilities Management Department all work toward the common goal of maintaining and improving the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.  The petitioned-for employees’ duties fall squarely within the department’s overall mission.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1.                  Central Washington University (employer) is an institution of higher education within the meaning of RCW 41.80.005(10).

2.                  The Washington Federation of State Employees (union) is an employee organization within the meaning of RCW 41.80.005(7).

3.                  The union represents a bargaining unit of custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance, and security employees.

4.                  The employer’s Operations Division is responsible for maintaining and enhancing the physical and technological infrastructure of the employer’s campus.  The Operations Division includes the Facilities Management Department, which is responsible for the maintenance of the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.  The department also oversees construction projects and plans future campus improvements.

5.                  The Planned & Preventative Maintenance Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises approximately 45 employees in ten different work groups.  Eight of the work groups—Mechanical/Weld, Electrical, Area, Boiler, Environmental Management Control System, Floor, Paint, and Abatement—are wholly represented by the union.  The two-person Lock Shop work group includes one employee who has historically been included in the union’s bargaining unit.  The other position, a program coordinator, is one of the petitioned-for employees.  The Maps work group contains one employee in the engineering assistant 1 job class, one employee in the engineering assistant 2 job class, and one employee in the cartographer job class.  These three employees are not currently represented but are on the list of petitioned-for employees.

6.                  The Administrative Services Section of the Facilities Management Department includes eight employees; three of those employees are currently represented by the union and four are on the list of petitioned-for employees.  The represented positions include one employee in the truck driver 2 job class and two employees in the equipment technician 3 and 4 job classes.

7.                  The Non-Maintenance Services Section of the Facilities Management Department comprises four employees.  Three of those employees are in the maintenance mechanic 2 job class and are included in the bargaining unit; one employee is in the construction project coordinator 2 job class and is on the list of petitioned-for employees.

8.                  The employees in the Facilities Management Department all work toward the common goal of maintaining and improving the employer’s buildings, facilities, and grounds.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1.                  The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Chapter 41.80 RCW and Chapter 391-35 WAC.

2.                  Based upon findings of fact 4 through 8, including the engineering assistants, program coordinators, forms and records analyst, cartographer, and procurement & supply specialists in the Facilities Management Department to the union’s existing bargaining unit is appropriate under RCW 41.80.070.

ORDER

The engineering assistants, program coordinators, forms and records analyst, cartographer, and procurement & supply specialists working in the Facilities Management Department at Central Washington University are included in the custodial, trades, food services, grounds, plant maintenance, and security employees bargaining unit represented by the Washington Federation of State Employees.  The existing bargaining unit description shall remain the same.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  11th  day of July, 2019.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

MICHAEL P. SELLARS, Executive Director

This order may be appealed by filing
timely objections with the Commission
under WAC 391-35-210.