King County, Decision 13414 (PECB, 2021)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Grady M. Stroman, the Complainant.

Kelsey Schirman, Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, for King County.

On July 27, 2021, Grady Stroman (complainant) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against King County (employer). The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice issued on August 17, 2021, notified Stroman that a cause of action could not be found at that time. Stroman was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.

On August 31, 2021, Stroman filed an amended complaint. On September 8, 2021, Stroman filed a second amended complaint. The Unfair Labor Practice Administrator dismisses the second amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUEs

The second amended complaint alleges the following:

Violations of the collective bargaining agreement.

Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) by threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit made to Grady Stroman related to unidentified protected activity.

The second amended complaint includes facts related to allegations outside the Commission’s jurisdiction and lacks facts alleging an interference violation. The second amended complaint fails to state a cause of action.

Background

Grady Stroman (complainant) is a Transit Operator at King County Metro (employer) and is represented by the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587 (union). Stroman had filed a grievance on an unidentified date. On an unidentified date, Stroman amended his grievance complaint by adding HR Policy 2018-0001. Stroman reported the violation of the policy to the HR manager. During the second step grievance response on May 4, 2021, Stroman stated that his grievance alleged that sections under the operator’s code of conduct and HR Policy 2018-0001 were violated. The HR Policy was identified as “The Book” in the collective bargaining agreement. The violations were related to allegations that a female operator violated these policies that are contained within The Book.

The May 4, 2021, second step grievance response stated that the female operator’s actions did not meet the legal criteria to be considered harassment. Stroman alleges the grievance did not assert anything about harassment even though harassment is mentioned in section 7.01. The second amended complaint alleges the employer did not talk to an individual that Stroman suggested the employer talk with during the investigation of the grievance, but the employer did talk with other parties to the incident. It alleges the employer made changes to Stroman’s grievance before the second step grievance. Stroman also alleges that there is a difference between what Stroman alleged in the grievance and what the employer is including in its response and the employer has been dishonest.

ANALYSIS

Collective Bargaining Agreement Violations

Applicable Legal Standard

The second amended complaint describes a violation of the collective bargaining agreement (CBA), which is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to the resolution of collective bargaining disputes between employers, employees, and unions. The agency does not have authority to resolve all disputes that might arise in public employment. Tacoma School District (Tacoma Education Association), Decision 5086-A (EDUC, 1995). Just because the complaint, amended complaint, and second amended complaint do not state a cause of action for an unfair labor practice does not necessarily mean the allegations involve lawful activity. It means that the issues are not matters within the purview of the Commission. Tacoma School District (Tacoma Education Association), Decision 5086-A.

On an unidentified date, Stroman filed a grievance related to violations of The Book. The Book was included in the parties’ CBA. It appears the employer processed the grievance. The Commission has consistently refused to resolve “violation of contract” allegations or attempts to enforce a provision of a CBA through the unfair labor practice provisions it administers. Anacortes School District, Decision 2464-A (EDUC, 1986) (citing City of Walla Walla, Decision 104 (PECB, 1976)). The Commission interprets and administers collective bargaining statutes but does not act in the role of arbitrator to interpret or enforce collective bargaining agreements. State – Corrections (Teamsters Local 313), Decision 8581 (PSRA, 2004) (citing Clallam County, Decision 607-A (PECB, 1979); City of Seattle, Decision 3470-A (PECB, 1990); Bremerton School District, Decision 5722-A (PECB, 1997)). An unfair labor practice complaint is not the appropriate avenue to address alleged violations of the parties’ CBA. The CBA can be enforced through the contractual grievance procedure or through the courts. Thus the allegation must be dismissed.

Interference

Applicable Legal Standard

Generally, the burden of proving unlawful interference with the exercise of rights protected by chapter 41.56 RCW rests with the complaining party or individual. An interference violation exists when an employee could reasonably perceive the employer’s actions as a threat of reprisal or force, or promise of benefit, associated with the union activity of that employee or of other employees. Kennewick School District, Decision 5632-A (PECB, 1996). The complainant is not required to demonstrate the employer intended or was motivated to interfere with employees’ protected collective bargaining rights. See 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 a union animus for an interference charge to prevail. City of Tacoma, Decision 6793‑A.

Application of Standard

The second amended complaint does not allege that the employer made threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit to Stroman associated with the union activity of Stroman or of other employees. The complaint alleges that the employer made a determination in the second step grievance response. It alleges the employer made changes to Stroman’s grievance by analyzing the grievance under a harassment analysis, and Stroman allegedly wanted the grievance to be analyzed under a different type of analysis even though the grievance included a section on harassment. The second amended complaint lacks facts alleging how any of the employer’s actions are associated with the union activity of Stroman or of other employees. Thus the complaint must be dismissed.

Order

The second amended 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  7th  day of October, 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.