DECISIONS

City of Mountlake Terrace, Decision 11605-A (PECB, 2013)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Cline & Associates, by Christopher J. Casillas, Attorney at Law, for the union.

Summit Law Group, P.L.L.C., by Michael C. Bolasina, Attorney at Law, for the employer.

The City of Mountlake Terrace (employer) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Mountlake Terrace Police Guild (union) on March 5, 2012.  The employer alleged that the union made a unilateral change and breached its good faith bargaining obligations seeking to consolidate grievance arbitrations.  The Unfair Labor Practice Manager reviewed the complaint under WAC 391-45-110 and found a cause of action to exist.  Examiner Emily Whitney conducted a hearing and issued a decision.[1]  The Examiner concluded that the employer failed to demonstrate that a past practice existed over the consolidation of grievances and the union did not make a unilateral change.  The Examiner concluded that the union did not breach its good faith bargaining obligations when the union sought an arbitrator’s ruling on the scope of the legal issues before the arbitrator.  The employer appealed the Examiner’s decision. 

The Commission reviews conclusions and applications of law, as well as interpretations of statutes, de novo.  We review findings of fact to determine if they are supported by substantial evidence and, if so, whether those findings in turn support the Examiner’s conclusions of law.  C-Tran, Decision 7088-B (PECB, 2002).  Substantial evidence exists if the record contains evidence of sufficient quantity to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the declared premise.  Renton Technical College, Decision 7441-A (CCOL, 2002).  Unchallenged findings of fact are accepted as true on appeal.  C-Tran, Decision 7088-B.  The Commission attaches considerable weight to the factual findings and inferences, including credibility determinations, made by its examiners.  Cowlitz County, Decision 7210-A (PECB, 2001).

Grievance procedures are mandatory subjects of bargaining.  RCW 41.56.030(4).  The components of a grievance procedure are mandatory subjects of bargaining.  King County Fire District 36, Decision 11120-A (PECB, 2013), City of Bellevue, Decision 11435-A (PECB, 2013).  Unlike City of Bellevue and King County Fire District 36, this case did not present a question of whether an aspect of the grievance procedure is a mandatory subject of bargaining.  There the parties reached impasse in collective bargaining over an aspect of the grievance procedure and sought, through the unfair labor practice mechanism, a decision as to whether the cost of representation at grievance arbitration was a mandatory subject of bargaining.  Here, the question before the Commission is not whether the consolidation of grievances is a mandatory subject of bargaining.  Rather, this case presented issues of whether the union unilaterally changed how grievances are consolidated and breached its good faith bargaining obligation by the manner in which it sought clarification from the grievance arbitrator of the scope of the issues before her. 

We have reviewed the record and fully considered the arguments in this manner.  The Examiner correctly stated the legal standard.  Substantial evidence supports the Examiner’s findings of fact.  The findings of fact support the Examiner’s conclusions of law.  We affirm the Examiner.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

The Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order issued by Examiner Emily K. Whitney are AFFIRMED and adopted as the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order of the Commission.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this   30^th   day of October, 2013.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

                                                MARILYN GLENN SAYAN, Chairperson

                                                THOMAS W. McLANE, Commissioner

Commissioner Bradburn did not participate in the consideration of or decision in this case.