HISTORICAL NOTE
BOISTFORT SCHOOL
DISTRICT
and
BOISTFORT EDUCATION
ASSOCIATION
DECISION 536-H (EDUC)
NPER 74.37UNFAIR PRACTICE REMEDIES--TYPES OF
ORDERS--INTERIM RELIEF
Following is an
excerpt from the minutes of the Commission meeting held on June 10, 1977:
"This matter involves a charge of unfair
labor practices filed by the Boistfort Education Association against the
Boistfort School District and a request that the commission seek immediate
injunctive relief.
"The Boistfort Education Association was
represented by Judith Lonnquist, general counsel for the Washington Education
Association and the Boistfort School District was represented by William Coates
of the firm of Kane, Vandeberg, and Hartinger.
"Chairman Krug stated that, in effect, the
Commission was being asked to request the Superior Court to issue an injunction
pendente lite. The
chairman further stated that in order for the commission to determine whether an
injunction should be sought, it would have to have evidence that one or more of
the allegations is of such nature that if sustained the complaining party would
have no fair or adequate remedy and that the complaining party would suffer
irreparable harm. No showing has been
tendered to the Commission on which it could make such an application. Accordingly counsel for the parties had been
asked to appear to review the specific charges and advise the Commission as to
which items the complaining parties think it would not have a fair, speedy and
adequate remedy at law if the case proceeds without injunctive relief. The Chairman asked counsel for the
complainant how much time would be required to furnish the necessary affidavits
to the Commission.
"At this point counsel for the school
district, Mr. Coates, sought recognition and protested he had not received
adequate notice of the meeting, having been notified by a telephone call the
morning of the meeting. Chairman Krug
stated she felt the point was moot as counsel for the complainant had also
received a call that morning and the meeting was merely for the purpose of
exploring the injunction question and not a formal hearing on the merits of the
case.
"Mr. Coates made the statement that in his
opinion the Commission did not have the authority to seek an injunction, that
if the commission was going to have this procedure, it should adopt rules, and
that if the complainants are going to make a showing of evidence, the
Commission should hear the other side.
Chairman Krug replied that she couldn't agree more and he would have
that opportunity when application was made to the Superior Court for an
injunction. In the meantime the
complaining party has a right to indicate the basis for the request for equitable
relief. The respondent will have every
opportunity to respond in the Court.
"There was further discussion between Ms.
Lonnquist and the commission as to which items contained in the complaint were
necessary of immediate relief. Ms.
Lonnquist reviewed some of the difficulties encountered in the district. Since the filing of the original complaint,
more than 50% of the staff had received notice of non-renewal. She stated she was filing an amended
complaint covering this and other items as soon as possible.
"The Commission discussed the procedure to be
followed in furnishing the affidavits in support of the request for injunctive
relief. Ms. Lonnquist again stressed the
need for keeping the affidavits confidential.
Mr. Coates again questioned the statutory authority of the Commission to
proceed on the question and again mentioned the lack of rules.
"At this point the meeting was recessed to
allow the commission to discuss the matter with Assistant Attorney General
Dick.
"The meeting was reconvened and at the
request of the Chairman, Mr. Dick made the following statement:
As I understand the question before the
Commission, the Commission wishes to know if there is a prima facie case which
the commission, having the statutory authority to do so, could take to Superior
Court seeking injunctive relief as petitioned for by the employees in this
case. It is my belief and informal
opinion that the making of that decision does not constitute a contested case under
Chapter 34.04 RCW. It therefore becomes
incumbent upon the Commission to decide how the commission wishes to get that
information upon which to base its decision.
The information would be only the most pertinent facts upon which to
made that determination, i.e., does the Commission have a prima facie
case.
It is also my belief and understanding of the law
that since it is not an APA contested case, on that issue at this time, it
would not be necessary or required of the Commission to either make that
decision in public or share the information it used to make the decision.
"The Chairman requested a copy of Mr. Dick's
remarks be furnished to the parties.
"The motion was made that Mr. Dick's
statement be the ruling of the commission.
The motion was seconded and approved.
"Chairman Krug asked Ms. Lonnquist how much
time she would require to make a showing of need on the amended complaint in
the form of affidavits which would be before the Commission only to enable it
to decide whether or not to grant the request that it seek an injunction pendente
lite. Ms. Lonnquist replied she
expected to have the affidavits in ten days.
The Chairman stated the commission would expect to have the amended
complaint and supporting affidavits filed by June 21st. The Chairman further stated the Commission
would welcome and carefully study any and all briefs submitted to it on the
Commission's statutory authority and the correct procedure it should be
following. This includes any amicus
curiae briefs also."
Following is an
excerpt from the minutes of the commission meeting held on September 9, 1977:
"Each of the Commissioners questioned Ms.
Lonnquist with respect to the circumstances surrounding the case. At the conclusion of the discussion the
chairman asked for a motion requesting the attorney general to seek equitable
relief in the superior court.
Commissioners Beck and Roberts declined to make such a motion. The chairman stated that, in the absence of a
motion, the application is denied."
By:Mary Ellen Krug, Chairman
Michael H. Beck, Commissioner
Paul A. Roberts, Commissioner
September 9, 1977
_________________________________________________________________
Case 825-U-77-95
MDT