City of Tacoma, Decision 13342-B (PECB, 2021)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Paul Marvy, Counsel, for PROTEC17.

Cheryl Comer, Deputy City Attorney, for the City of Tacoma.

analysis

On August 28, 2020, PROTEC17 (union) filed a petition to represent three positions in the City of Tacoma Police Department (employer). Those positions were the Forensics Manager, the Financial Manager, and the Office Manager. The employer asserted that the positions were confidential.

After a hearing, the Executive Director concluded that the employer did not meet its burden to prove that the petitioned-for employees had a sufficient labor nexus to be confidential under RCW 41.56.030(12)(c). City of Tacoma, Decision 13342 (PECB, 2021). The employer filed a timely appeal asserting that the Office Manager was confidential. Both parties filed appeal briefs.

The employer argues that RCW 41.56.030(12)(c) excludes from collective bargaining an administrative assistant or secretary to the executive head of the bargaining unit, and the Office Manager is the secretary to the executive head of the bargaining unit. Additionally, the employer maintains the evidence of the confidential relationship between the Office Manager and the Chief of Police is sufficient to meet the requirements of WAC 391-35-320(2), an argument that the Executive Director did not consider.

In response, the union contends that the employer neither explained how nor offered authority to support the employer’s position that the analysis under RCW 41.56.030(12)(c) and WAC 391-35-320(2) are different. The union argues that the employer does not offer evidence to support its assertions that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence.

The issue before the Commission is whether substantial evidence supports the Executive Director’s decision that the Office Manager is not a confidential employee within the meaning of RCW 41.56.030(12).

In reaching the conclusion that the Office Manager was not a confidential employee, the Executive Director did not analyze whether the Office Manager was confidential under WAC 391-35-320(2). The employer argues an analysis under WAC 391-35-320(2) would lead to a different conclusion.

Order

The matter is remanded to the Executive Director for consideration of the employer’s arguments concerning WAC 391-35-320(2).

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  21st  day of September, 2021.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson

MARK BUSTO, Commissioner

KENNETH J. PEDERSEN, Commissioner