Columbia Basin College, Decision 14141 (PSRA, 2025)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Columbia Basin College, Employer.
angel barragan, Complainant, vs. washington public employees association, Respondent.	CASE 143012-U-25 DECISION 14141 - PSRA ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Angel Barragan, the complainant.

Amanda Hacker, President, for the Columbia Basin College.

On April 11, 2025, Angel Barragan (complainant) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Washington Public Employees Association (union). The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice issued on May 9, 2025, notified Barragan that a cause of action could not be found at that time. Barragan was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.

On May 15, 2025, Barragan filed an amended complaint. The Unfair Labor Practice Administrator dismisses the amended complaint for timeliness.

ISSUE

The amended complaint alleges the following:

Union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a) outside six months of the date the complaint was filed, by breaching its duty of fair representation in withdrawing a grievance and not responding to Angel Barragan’s appeal.

The amended complaint is dismissed as untimely.

Background

Angel Barragan was employed by Columbia Basin College (employer) and was represented by the Washington Public Employees Association (union). The amended complaint does not include facts related to when Barragan stopped working for the employer.

On October 24, 2023, the union initiated the grievance process on behalf of Barragan in response to an unidentified adverse employment action taken against Barragan. On December 14, 2023, the union provided notice to Barragan that it was withdrawing its grievance because it believed it could not prevail. The notice also provided Barragan with appeal rights under the union’s bylaws. The bylaws allegedly state “the Executive Board shall advise the member of its decision within 30 days from the date of its meeting or within seven (7) days of the conference all.”

On an unidentified date, but within the 15-day deadline, Barragan submitted a written appeal to the union. On an unidentified date, Barragan participated in an appeal conference call with the union’s Executive Board. Barragan alleges the union did not provide a response after the conference call either within the seven-day or 30-day response window outlined in the bylaws. On unidentified dates, Barragan continued to follow up with the union through email and phone calls. Barragan allegedly did not receive acknowledgment, updates, or a written determination from the union. The complaint alleges it was only after an unidentified date in October 2024 that Baragan realized that the union had defaulted in processing or responding to the appeal.

ANALYSIS

Applicable Legal Standard

There is a six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice complaints. “[A] complaint shall not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the complaint with the commission.” RCW 41.80.120(1). The Commission has ruled multiple times on statute of limitations questions involving unfair labor practice complaints. The six-month statute of limitations begins to run when the complainant knows, or should have known, of the violation. State – Corrections, Decision 11025 (PSRA, 2011) (citing City of Bremerton, Decision 7739-A (PECB, 2003)).

The only exception to the strict enforcement of the six-month statute of limitations is when the complainant had no actual or constructive notice of the acts or events which are the basis of the charges.City of Renton, Decision 12563-A (PECB, 2016) (citing City of Pasco, Decision 4197-A (PECB, 1994)). Under the “discovery rule,” the statute of limitations does not begin to run until the complainant, using reasonable diligence, would have discovered the cause of action. U.S. Oil & Refining Co. v. State Department of Ecology, 96 Wn.2d 85, 92 (1981). The doctrine of equitable tolling requires the exercise of reasonable diligence on the part of the complainant. Adult Residential Care, Inc., 344 NLRB 826 (2005). The party asserting equitable tolling should apply bears the burden of proof. Nickum v. City of Bainbridge Island, 153 Wn. App. 366, 379 (2009). To prove that the statute should be tolled, the complainant would need to show deception or concealment of the facts forming the basis of the unfair labor practice complaint and the exercise of diligence by the complainant. City of Renton, Decision 12563-A (citing Millay v. Cam, 135 Wn.2d 193, 206 (1998)).

In unfair labor practice proceedings before the Commission, the ultimate burdens of pleading, prosecution, and proof lie with the complainant. State – Office of the Governor, Decision 10948-A (PSRA, 2011) (citing City of Seattle, Decision 8313-B (PECB, 2004)). To meet their obligation, the complainant merely must provide “a simple, concise statement of the claim and the relief sought.” Shooting Park Ass’n v. City of Sequim, 158 Wn.2d 342, 352 (2006) (citing CR 8(a)); see also WAC 391-45-050(2) (the Commission’s requirement of “notice pleading”). Thus, to meet the burden of pleading, the Commission requires a complainant to file an unfair labor practice complaint form and, “in separate numbered paragraphs,” provide a clear and concise statement of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practice. WAC 391-45-050; Apostolis v. City of Seattle, 101 Wn. App. 300, 306-307 (2000). City of Seattle, Decision 4057-A (PECB, 1993). Numbering paragraphs is important to allow the respondent to reference specific allegations within the complaint when filing an answer.

Complainants must allege facts addressing the basic elements of a cause of action. Kitsap County, Decision 12022-A (PECB, 2014). A complainant must describe the facts with sufficient clarity for agency staff to determine whether a cause of action exists “and then sufficient to put the respondent on notice of the charges that it will be expected to” defend against. Thurston Fire District 3, Decision 3830 (PECB, 1991). Thus, for example, those facts must include the time, place, date, and participants in all occurrences. WAC 391-45-050(2)(a). The agency staff reviewing the complaint are not empowered “to fill in gaps in a complaint.” City of Tacoma, Decision 4053-B (PECB, 1992); South Whidbey School District, Decision 10880-A (EDUC, 2011) (citing Jefferson Transit Authority, Decision 5928 (PECB, 1997)). In other words, a complainant must connect the dots by alleging sufficient facts that would support finding a violation and identifying the violation alleged.

Application of Standard

The amended complaint is untimely filed. The deficiency notice informed Barragan of the six-month statute of limitations and the necessity of including specific dates of events to determine if the petition was timely filed. The union initiated the grievance process on October 24, 2023. On December 14, 2023, Barragan had notice that the union was withdrawing the grievance. On an unidentified date, but within at least a 15-day period Barragan appealed the union’s decision to withdraw the grievance. While the complaint does not identify when the appeal was filed, based on the facts alleged, it would have likely been filed no later than December 29, 2023. On an unidentified date, Barragan participated in an appeal conference call. The complaint alleges Barragan should have received a decision from the union regarding Barragan’s appeal sometime between seven days and 30 days. The complaint alleges that Barragan knew that the union did not provide a response to the appeal within that seven-day to 30-day period. On unidentified dates through email and phone calls, Barragan allegedly followed up with the union regarding the appeal. Barragan continued to not receive a response and knew the union had not provided a response. The complaint then asserts that it wasn’t until an unidentified date in October 2024 that Barragan knew the union was not going to respond or had defaulted in processing the appeal.

First, it is unclear what date the October knowledge occurred. The original complaint was filed on April 11, 2025. For the amended complaint to be timely filed, the knowledge would have had to occur on or after October 11, 2024. If it had occurred prior to October 11, the amended complaint would be untimely.

Second, Barragan had knowledge the grievance was being withdrawn on December 14, 2023. Barragan then appealed the union’s decision within a 15-day appeal deadline and knew that the union did not respond within the seven-day or 30-day response window, which means Barragan knew the appeal was not granted within that 30-day period and knew the union had not responded. On additional unidentified dates, Barragan continued to be aware of the lack of response from the union. There are no facts asserting how Barragan only became aware on an unidentified date in October 2024 that the union had defaulted in processing or responding to the appeal. There are no facts asserting the union engaged in deception or concealment of Barragan knowing the union was not responding.

Because the amended complaint asserts Barragan had knowledge as early as 30 days after the appeal conference call and all other allegations lack specific dates of occurrence, the amended complaint is not filed timely and must be dismissed.

Order

The amended complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED for timeliness.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  18th  day of June, 2025.

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.