Washington State Language Access Providers, Decision 13326 (PECB, 2021)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Juan Medina Bloise, President, for WA INTERPRETERS.

M. Kate Garcia, Assistant Attorney General, and Cheryl L. Wolfe, Senior Counsel, Attorney General Robert W. Ferguson, for Washington State Language Access Providers.

On January 25, 2021, WA INTERPRETERS (union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (employer). The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice issued on February 9, 2021, notified the union that a cause of action could not be found at that time. The union was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.

No further information has been filed by the union. The Unfair Labor Practice Administrator dismisses the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUE

The complaint alleges the following:

Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) within six months of the date the complaint was filed, by unidentified threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit made by providing a list of employees to the Public Employment Relations Commission.

The complaint is dismissed. The complaint lacks facts alleging an interference violation within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Background

WA INTERPRETERS (union) is seeking to represent language access providers employed by the Washington State Department of Labor and Industries (employer).

On February 6, 2020, the union requested that the employer provide a list of language access providers that had served a department client after January 1, 2019. The employer provided a list of less than 340 interpreters on March 24, 2020. On May 28, 2020, the union requested that the employer provide a list of every language access provider, without duplicates, that had served the department client after January 1, 2019. The employer provided a list of less than 340 interpreters on July 23, 2020.

On October 27, 2020, the union requested that the employer provide “a copy of every request for public records received by [the employer] from 01/01/20 to 10/27/20 for lists of language access providers.” On December 9, 2020, the employer provided a batch of lists in reply. The list included all language access providers that had accepted an appointment since January 1, 2019. The file had 1,563 entries.

The union filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) a representation petition for language access providers on November 19, 2020. Based on PERC’s request, on December 17, 2020, the employer provided PERC with a list of language access providers. The list contained 1,224 entries. The union alleges the list was inaccurate and inflated.

ANALYSIS

Interference

It is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their statutory rights. RCW 41.56.140(1). To prove interference, the complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the employer’s conduct interfered with protected employee rights. City of Mountlake Terrace, Decision 11831-A (PECB, 2014); Grays Harbor College, Decision 9946-A (PSRA, 2009); Pasco Housing Authority, Decision 5927-A (PECB, 1997), aff’d, Pasco Housing Authority v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 98 Wn. App. 809 (2000). An employer interferes with employee rights when an employee could reasonably perceive the employer’s actions as a threat of reprisal or force, or a promise of benefit, associated with the union activity of that employee or of other employees. Kennewick School District, Decision 5632-A (PECB, 1996).

An employer may interfere with employee rights by making statements, through written communication, or by actions. Snohomish County, Decision 9834-B (PECB, 2008); Pasco Housing Authority, Decision 5927-A, aff’d, Pasco Housing Authority v. Public Employment Relations Commission, 98 Wn. App. 809.

The complainant is not required to demonstrate that the employer intended or was motivated to interfere with employees’ protected collective bargaining rights. City of Tacoma, Decision 6793‑A (PECB, 2000). Nor is it necessary to show that the employee involved was actually coerced by the employer or that the employer had union animus for an interference charge to prevail. Id.

The complaint lacks facts alleging how employees could reasonably perceive the employer’s actions as a threat of reprisal or force, or a promise of benefit, associated with the identified union activity. The complaint alleges the employer provided a list of employees to PERC. The union alleges the list was inaccurate and inflated. The complaint also alleges the union was engaged in organizing the language access providers. The complaint lacks facts alleging how employees could reasonably perceive the employer’s actions as a threat of reprisal or force, or promise of benefit.

The union was notified that the complaint was deficient and was provided an opportunity to correct the deficiency. The union did not correct the deficiency and file an amended complaint. Because the complaint lacks facts necessary to allege an interference violation within the Commission’s jurisdiction, the complaint is dismissed.

Order

The complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  25th  day of March, 2021.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Emily K. Whitney, Unfair Labor Practice Administrator

This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.