DECISIONS

Puyallup School District, Decision 13549 (PECB, 2022)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

In the matter of the petition of: Public school employees of washington For clarification of an existing bargaining unit of employees of: puyallup school district

CASE 134423-C-21 DECISION 13549 - PECB order of dismissal

Nate Blanchard, Authorized Representative, for the Public School Employees of Washington.

Lorraine Wilson and Elizabeth Robertson, Attorneys at Law, Porter Foster Rorick LLP, for the Puyallup School District.

On August 30, 2021, Public School Employees of Washington (union) filed a unit clarification petition concerning its secretarial/clerical bargaining unit at the Puyallup School District (employer). The union asserted that beginning in 2020, the employer eliminated or removed seven positions from the bargaining unit by either terminating employees or unilaterally making a position nonrepresented. Representation Case Administrator Dario de la Rosa conducted a conference call with the parties to discuss the disputed positions. During that call and through subsequent correspondence, the employer notified the union that all the disputed positions were either included in the union’s bargaining unit or had been eliminated based upon vacancies.

 

Based upon the employer’s responses, Representation Case Administrator de la Rosa issued a deficiency notice on July 18, 2022, notifying the union that it did not appear that a dispute existed that could be resolved through this agency’s unit clarification processes because there has not been a recent change in circumstances warranting clarification of the unit. The deficiency notice also notified the union that its petition appeared to be moot with respect to those positions already included in the bargaining unit. The union was provided an opportunity to show cause as to why its petition should be subject to further processing.

 

On August 1, 2022, the employer submitted a response agreeing with the Representation Case Administrator’s deficiency notice. The union did not provide a response. The union’s position is dismissed because no actual dispute exists that warrants clarification under this agency’s unit clarification processes.

 

BACKGROUND

 

The union represents a bargaining unit of nonsupervisory positions in the secretarial/clerical general job classification. See Puyallup School District, Decision 12730 (PECB, 2017), aff’d, Decision 12370-A (PECB, 2017). According to the union’s petition, the employer created nine new job titles in 2017 which applied to employees in the union’s bargaining unit. Those job titles include the Administrative Assistant, Bookkeeper, Coordinator, Office Clerk, Office Professional B, Office Manager, Receptionist, Secretary, and Specialist positions.

 

The petition asserted that the bargaining unit “lost” several positions between April 2020 and January 2021, including positions in the Communications group held by Anne Hogenson, Robin Rhodes, and Nancy French; the Office Professional B position held by Gale Baker, Kathy Raring, and Haley Konsmo; and the Specialist position formerly held by Heidi Ashlock. During the Representation Case Administrator’s investigation of the union’s petition, the employer provided information about the disputed positions.

 

Office Coordinator Positions

The employer eliminated the Office Coordinator position held by Ann Hogenson in 2014 after Hogenson left employment with the district. The employer also eliminated the Office Coordinator position held by Robin Rhodes after Rhodes moved to a professional technical position outside of the bargaining unit. The employer also transferred the volunteer specialist work performed by Rhodes to bargaining unit staff.

The Office Coordinator held by Nancy French remained a bargaining unit position when French left the position in 2015 and was subsequently filled by another individual. The employer eliminated the position in 2020 as part of a reduction in force.

 

Office Professional B Positions

The employer created the Office Professional B position held by Gale Baker to perform a specific set of work and was eliminated the position once that work was completed. Baker currently occupies a different bargaining unit position within the district.

 

The employer created the Office Professional B held by Kathy Raring to perform a specific set of warehouse work. The employer eliminated the position once the warehouse work was completed. The other duties assigned to Raring were distributed to bargaining unit positions and Raring subsequently left employment with the district. The employer also eliminated the Office Professional B position held by Haley Konsmo and Konsmo currently occupies a different bargaining unit position with the district.

 

Specialist Positions

Specialist Heidi Ashlock worked in a bargaining unit position until 2015 and subsequently transferred to a professional-technical position outside the bargaining unit. Her former position still exists and the employer considers that position to be included in the union’s bargaining unit.

 

ANALYSIS

Applicable Legal Standard

The determination of appropriate bargaining units is a function delegated to this agency by the legislature. RCW 41.56.060. 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 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. Central Washington University, Decision 9963-B (PSRA, 2010); Quincy School District, Decision 3962‑A (PECB, 1993).

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 existing bargaining unit based upon a change in circumstances to ensure its continued appropriateness. See, e.g., Toppenish School District, Decision 1143-A (PECB, 1981) (outlining the procedures to remove supervisors from existing bargaining units).

 

Because unit clarifications alter the composition of bargaining units and in order to maintain stability in the bargaining units, the Commission adopted WAC 391-35-020 to govern the time frames in which unit clarification petitions may be filed. The time frames vary depending on the nature of the positions at issue and whether the petitioning party is attempting to include or exclude those positions in or from an existing bargaining unit.

 

The change in circumstances that leads to the filing of a unit clarification petition must be a meaningful change in an employee’s duties, responsibilities, or working conditions. University of Washington, Decision 10496-A (PSRA, 2011) (citing City of Richland, Decision 279-A (PECB, 1978)). A mere change in job titles is not necessarily a material change in working conditions that would qualify under chapter 391‑35 WAC to alter the composition of a bargaining unit through the unit clarification process. University of Washington, Decision 10496-A. Other types of changes to the workplace environment, such as a reorganization of an employer’s workforce, are occurrences that could warrant the filing of a unit clarification petition. See Lewis County (Teamsters Local 252), Decision 6750 (PECB, 1999). Absent a recent change in circumstances, a unit clarification petition will be dismissed as untimely. See University of Washington, Decision 11590.

 

Application of Standards

The union’s petition does not appear to be timely because the union has not asserted any recent change in circumstances that would warrant clarification. Additionally, the supplemental information provided by the employer also demonstrates clarification is not warranted because the disputed position have either been eliminated or remain bargaining unit positions.

 

Office Coordinator and Office Professional B Positions

The Office Coordinator and Office Professional B positions are either vacant or eliminated positions. The Commission generally declines to clarify vacant or contemplated position. See King County, Decision 4569-A (PECB, 1994); City of Pasco, Decision 2294 (PECB, 1986). Although a presumption exists that the work performed by these positions continues to be bargaining unit work, the fact that the employer has declined to staff these positions does not make this matter ripe for clarification.

 

Additionally, the employer distributed some or all the work performed by Rhodes, Baker, and Raring to other bargaining unit positions. The fact that the employer eliminated bargaining unit positions and distributed the work to other bargaining unit positions does not create a change in circumstances that would warrant clarifying the bargaining unit.[1] The union failed to provide a compelling reason as to why clarification should be ordered in this case. Absent an actual change of circumstances that would warrant clarification, the petition must be dismissed.

 

Specialist

The Specialist position continues to be included in the union’s bargaining unit, but Ashlock has since taken a different position with the district. Because it readily appears the Specialist position continues to be a bargaining unit position, the union’s petition to include that position in its bargaining unit appears to be moot.

 

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  10th  day of August, 2022.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Michael P. Sellars, Executive Director

This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-35-210.