Yakima School District, Decision 7799 (EDUC, 2002)

The complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-referenced matter was filed with the Public Employment Relations Commission by the Yakima Education Association (union) on June 3, 2002.The complaint alleged that the Yakima School District (employer) interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a), dominated or assisted the union in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), discriminated against the union in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(c), and refused to bargain in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(e), by circumventing the union through direct dealings with employees concerning terms and conditions of employment in a May 22, 2002, email from Superintendent Ben Soria to employees, and by breach of its good faith bargaining obligations through withdrawing a proposal made in negotiations.

The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1]A deficiency notice was issued on July 3, 2002, indicating that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time for the allegations of employer domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), and employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(c).The deficiency notice stated that in relation to the domination allegations, none of the facts alleged in the complaint suggested that the employer had involved itself in the internal affairs or finances of the union, nor that the employer had attempted to create, fund, or control a “company union.” See City of Anacortes, Decision 6863 (PECB, 1999).

In reference to the discrimination allegations, the deficiency notice indicated that the complaint failed to allege facts indicating that the employer's actions were taken in reprisal for union activities protected under Chapter 41.59 RCW. The deficiency notice indicated that the interference and refusal to bargain allegations of the complaint under RCW 41.59.140(1)(a) and (e) appeared to state a cause of action, and would be assigned to an examiner for further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC, after the union had an opportunity to respond to the deficiency notice.

The deficiency notice advised the union that an amended complaint could be filed and served within 21 days following such notice, and that any materials filed as an amended complaint would be reviewed under WAC 391-45-110 to determine if they stated a cause of action. The deficiency notice further advised the union that in the absence of a timely amendment stating a cause of action, the allegations of the complaint concerning employer domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), and employer discrimina­tion in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(c) would be dismissed.

On July 29, 2002, the union filed a response to the deficiency notice indicating that it would not be submitting an amended complaint in relation to the allegations of employer domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), and employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(c).

NOW, THEREFORE, it is

ORDERED

1.                  Assuming all of the facts alleged to be true and provable, the interference and refusal to bargain allegations of the complaint state a cause of action, summarized as follows:

Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.59.140(­1)(a), and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(e), by circumventing the union through direct dealings with employees con­cerning terms and conditions of employment in a May 22, 2002, email from Superintendent Ben Soria to employees, and by breach of its good faith bargaining obligations through withdraw­ing a proposal made in negotiations.

The interference and refusal to bargain allegations of the complaint will be the subject of further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.

2.                  Yakima School District shall:

File and serve its answer to the allegations listed in paragraph 1 of this order, within 21 days fol­lowing the date of this order.

An answer shall:

a.         Specifically admit, deny or explain each fact alleged in the complaint, except if a respondent states it is without knowledge of the fact, that statement will operate as a denial; and

b.         Assert any affirmative defenses that are claimed to exist in the matter.

The answer shall be filed with the Commission at its Olympia office. A copy of the answer shall be served on the attorney or principal representative of the person or organization that filed the complaint. Service shall be completed no later than the day of filing. Except for good cause shown, a failure to file an answer within the time specified, or the failure to file an answer to specifically deny or explain a fact alleged in the complaint, will be deemed to be an admission that the fact is true as alleged in the complaint, and as a waiver of a hearing as to the facts so admitted. See WAC 391‑45‑210.

3.                  The allegations of the complaint concerning employer domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), and employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(c) are DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 31^st day of July, 2002.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

[SIGNED]

MARK S. DOWNING, Director of Administration

Paragraph 3 of this order will be the final order of the agency on any defective allegations, unless a notice of appeal is filed with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.