1,430 result(s)
-
476.
Richland School District (Richland Education Association), Decision 13408 (EDUC, 2021) - 09/21/2021
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn August 3, 2021, Christine M. Jacobs (complainant) filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging the Richland Education Association (union) committed an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.59.140(2)(a) by interfering and discriminating against her in retaliation for her exercise of protected rights. [...] During that meeting Vice President Ken Hays verbally abused and sexually discriminated against Jacobs by screaming at her, including yelling “fuck you” to her and calling her a “fucking bitch.” Hays also allegedly told Jacobs that if she did not resign as union president that she would be held responsible for ruining the [...] Employees covered by chapter 41.59 RCW have the right to organize and designate representatives of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining or exercise other rights under the chapter free from interference, restraint, coercion, or discrimination.
-
477.
Thurston County (OPEIU Local 23), Decision 12150 (PECB, 2014) - 08/28/2014
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint in Case 26623-U-14-6783 concern employer discrimination (and derivative interference) in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by its action against Fornara, in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56. [...] The Commission does not have jurisdiction over the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements, including seniority issues, or over allegations of human rights violations, such as discrimination based upon gender, race, national origin, or age. [...] Ten, the Commission does not have jurisdiction over allegations against employers for discrimination based upon race, gender, national origin, and similar invidious discrimination, or over claims of defamation and slander.
-
478.
Marysville School District, Decision 7729 (PECB, 2002) - 05/28/2002
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice was issued on March 6, 2002, indicating that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time for the allegations of employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and domination or assistance of the union in [...] In reference to the discrimination allegations, the deficiency notice stated that the complaint failed to allege facts indicating that the employer's actions were taken in reprisal for union activities protected under Chapter 41.56 RCW. In relation to the domination allegations, the deficiency notice indicated that none of [...] The deficiency notice further advised the union that in the absence of a timely amendment stating a cause of action, the allegations concerning employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and domination or assistance of the union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2) would be dismissed.
-
479.
City of Vancouver (IAFF Local 452), Decision 6358 (PECB, 1998) - 07/15/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAbsence of “Discrimination” Allegations There is no indication or allegation in these complaints that the challenged agreement discriminates on the basis of union membership, which would constitute a discrimination violation under RCW 41.56.140(1) and/or RCW 41.56.150(1) and (2). [...] Nor is there any suggestion that the challenged agreement discriminates on some other invidious basis (e.g., race, sex, creed, national origin or similar grounds), which would call into question the right of the union to enjoy the benefits of status as an exclusive bargaining representative under the state collective
-
480.
Port of Seattle, Decision 5076 (PECB, 1995) - 05/09/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeMuch of the documentation provided by Chadwick related to allegations of discrimination on the basis of sex, maintenance of a hostile work environment, failure to provide affirmative action, and scheduling of work and promotions in contravention of "Title VII". [...] Upon close examination, however, nothing is found which suggests that the employer discriminated against Chadwick on the basis of her pursuit of activities protected by Chapter 41. 56 RCW (e. g. , filing grievances, other union activity, or refraining from union activity). [...] [6] Even where timely and specific, allegations that only relate to forms of discrimination outside of the collective bargaining process must be dismissed.
-
481.
City of Tacoma, Decision 8031-A (PECB, 2004) - 03/15/2004
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe test for “discrimination” violations under RCW 41.56.140(1) is more complex. [...] Discrimination Violation The Examiner concludes that no prima facie case of discrimination was made out by the union on this record. [...] Analysis of the union’s discrimination claim thus ends here. FINDINGS OF FACT
-
482.
King County, Decision 6994-D (PECB, 2003) - 12/30/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeMcKee and Hammond were the first employees subjected to the federal deadline, but that is not conclusive proof of union animus or discrimination. [...] We hold that the Examiner applied the correct legal standard to the “discrimination” claim in this case. [...] I call it discrimination. See Decision 6994-C, at page 16. I would find that a “discrimination” unfair labor practice did occur, and I would issue an order that the employer cease and desist.
-
483.
Edmonds Community College (Washington Public Employees Association), Decision 7815-A (PSRA, 2003) - 05/09/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRCW 41.56.150(1) prohibits unions from interfering with or discriminating against public employees who exercise collective bargaining rights: [...] (3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] [6] Discrimination connotes deprivation of some ascertainable employment right, status or benefit.
-
484.
Behavioral Health Resources, Decision 5609 (PECB, 1996) - 07/19/1996
DECISIONS - ElectionThe contract between BHR and Thurston County contains a broad prohibition against discrimination by BHR in its personnel relations with its employees. [...] The extension of Thurston County’s “Non-discrimination Plan and the state and federal laws upon which it is based” to BHR as a contractor appears to be consistent with national policy.6 Assurances that invidious discrimination will not be supported by public funds are consistent with state and federal nondiscrimination laws [...] Moreover, the county’s remedy for noncompliance with the discrimination clause would be to cancel its contract with BHR, rather than to correct errant BHR employees.
-
485.
Wellpinit School District, Decision 3625 (PECB, 1990) - 11/19/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceb. Interfering with or discriminating against classified employees in the exercise of their collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW. [...] c. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against Terri Samuels in reprisal for their exercise of the collective bargaining rights secured by the laws of the State of Washington. [...] d. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against Alvina Andrews in reprisal for their exercise of the collective bargaining rights secured by the laws of the State of Washington.
-
486.
Workforce Central, Decision 10280 (PECB, 2009) - 01/23/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAll personnel policies, including the Consortium’s policy against unlawful discrimination, shall be followed. [...] The Commission and Supreme Court require a higher standard of proof to establish a ‘discrimination’ violation. [...] In a discrimination case, a complainant has the burden to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, after which the employer has the opportunity to articulate legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons for its actions.
-
487.
Seattle School District, Decision 5237 (EDUC, 1995) - 08/24/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeDischarge is the classic example of employer discrimination following union activities. [...] Nagi has made a prima facie case of discrimination. EMPLOYER'S LEGITIMATE, NON-RETALIATORY MOTIVE [...] This argument seriously misstates the employer's obligation in a discrimination case.
-
488.
King County (Teamsters Local 117), Decision 12136 (PECB, 2014) - 08/15/2014
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAdams alleges: “Discrimination and Unfair Labor Practices; Interference/Restraint in exercising guaranteed employment rights under CBA and King County Personnel Policy.” [...] The Commission does not have jurisdiction over allegations of employer gender or racial discrimination; Adams must seek relief for those claims through human rights agencies or the courts. [...] The Commission may have jurisdiction under RCW 41.56.150(1) for claims of union interference concerning invidious discrimination based upon gender or race.
-
489.
Southwest Washington Agency on Aging and Disabilities (OPEIU Local 11), Decision 11703-A (PECB, 2013) - 04/09/2013
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), union inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.150(2) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1)], and union discrimination for filing charges [...] Finally, regarding discrimination for filing charges, there is no information in the complaint showing that Tran filed an unfair labor practice against the union prior to the present complaint, or that he testified before the Commission against the union. [...] There is no information indicating that the union interfered with or discriminated against Tran based upon his union activities, requested the employer to commit a violation, or that Tran previously filed a complaint, or gave testimony before the Commission, against the union.
-
490.
Southwest Washington Agency on Aging and Disabilities (OPEIU Local 11), Decision 11703 (PECB, 2013) - 04/05/2013
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), union inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.150(2) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1)], and union discrimination for filing charges [...] Finally, regarding discrimination for filing charges, there is no information in the complaint showing that Tran filed an unfair labor practice against the union prior to the present complaint, or that he testified before the Commission against the union. [...] There is no information indicating that the union interfered with or discriminated against Tran based upon his union activities, requested the employer to commit a violation, or that Tran previously filed a complaint, or gave testimony before the Commission, against the union.
-
491.
Hood Canal School District, Decision 11236 (PECB, 2011) - 11/16/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concerning employer interference, discrimination and derivative interference, and refusal to bargain and derivative interference, state causes of action under WAC 391-45-110(2) for further unfair labor practice proceedings before the Commission. [...] The statement of facts alleges that the interference and discrimination claims are connected to union activities, but in Paragraph IV the union also states that Hall and five other employees presented a No Confidence petition to the employer, and that in doing so the employees were “acting in a concerted fashion.” The use [...] [1] Employer discrimination (and if so, derivative interference) in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by its actions toward Devin Hall (Hall) in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW;
-
492.
City of Renton (WSCCCE), Decision 10096 (PECB, 2008) - 06/06/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeFive, the complaint alleges union discrimination for filing charges in violation of RCW 41.56.150(3). [...] An allegation concerning discrimination for filing charges cannot stand absent evidence that Andrus has previously filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Commission or given testimony before the Commission. [...] The remaining deficiencies concern allegations of union interference, discrimination for filing charges, refusal to bargain, and “other” violations.
-
493.
Wahkiakum County, Decision 10042 (PECB, 2008) - 04/18/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), and “Other” unfair labor practices. [...] The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses allegations of the amended complaint concerning “Other” unfair labor practices and finds causes of action for employer interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain, as set forth below in the preliminary ruling. [...] The interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain allegations of the amended complaint will be the subject of further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.
-
494.
State - Corrections, Decision 9913 (PSRA, 2007) - 11/26/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe deficiency notice indicated that a cause of action did not exist for the allegations of the complaint concerning employer interference with employee rights by denial of Bailey's Weingarten right, and additional employer interference and discrimination against Marckini, Bailey, Carver, and other unnamed employees. [...] Regarding claims of employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c), the complaint does not provide facts sufficient to conclude that the employer took discriminatory actions against Marckini, Bailey, Carver, and other unnamed employees in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.80 RCW. [...] 3. The allegations of the complaint concerning employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c), contained in paragraphs five, eight, nine, and ten of the statement of facts attached to the complaint, concerning Marckini, Bailey, Carver,
-
495.
Thurston County, Decision 1877 (PECB, 1984) - 03/12/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe judges' argument in defense of a sex discrimination claim against the court that the judges had no right to control is troublesome. [...] There is no evidence in the record that the trier of fact in the sex discrimination case gave credence to the judges' arguments. [...] Nor is there any recording of a final outcome in the sex discrimination claim.
-
496.
City of Seattle, Decision 205 (PECB, 1977) - 03/30/1977
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceservice rules", "practices which unfairly discriminate against nonminority officers", actions "unlawful pursuant to RCW 49.60.030", violation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Guild and the City of Seattle, violation of WAC 162-12-140(3)(g), discrimination within the meaning of Chapter 49.60 RCW, and an [...] While RCW 41.56.040 is the source of the rights made available to public employees under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, neither that section nor the Chapter as a whole constitutes a direct grant of a right to be free of race or sex discrimination. [...] Each of the 15 officers who had attained a higher standing on promotional register 118-74 than this minority officer have been unlawfully aggrieved for the reason that the City has unlawfully coerced or forced the Police Department to pursue employment and promotional practices which unfairly discriminate against
-
497.
Lower Columbia College, Decision 8117-B (PSRA, 2005) - 04/13/2005
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeWPEA’s Discrimination Claim Against Employer Properly Dismissed A discrimination violation occurs when an employer takes action which is substantially motivated as a reprisal against the exercise of rights protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW. Educational Service District 114, Decision 4361-A (PECB, 1994). [...] Where a complaint establishes a prima facie case of discrimination, the employer need only articulate non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. [...] A prima facie case of discrimination requires proof of a causal connection between protected union activity and the disputed employer action.
-
498.
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Decision 13819 (PSRA, 2024) - 04/16/2024
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn the amended complaint, Fornara alleged the employer retaliated against her and discriminated against her for filing unfair labor practice complaints. [...] Employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(c) [and if so derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(a)] within six months of the date the complaint was filed, by retaliating against Anjelita Longoria Fornara for her exercise of protected activity. [...] In contrast to City of Tacoma, Fornara has not established that, should she prevail on her unfair labor practice complaint, the Commission’s standard remedy for unlawful discrimination—backpay with interest and reinstatement—would not be adequate.
-
499.
University of Washington, Decision 11085 (PSRA, 2011) - 06/07/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThree, Hebel alleges employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)]. [...] The amended complaint form alleges only employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)], by its termination of Hebel. [...] It is not possible to process Hebel’s discrimination claim under RCW 41.80.110(1)(c) or Hebel’s independent and derivative interference claims under RCW 41.80.110(1)(a).
-
500.
State - Corrections (Teamsters Local 313), Decision 8581 (PSRA, 2004) - 06/09/2004
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint in this case alleges union interference with employee rights (in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1)) and discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge (in violation of RCW 41.56.150(3)). [...] Third, Wesen alleges sex discrimination by the union. This Commission does not have jurisdiction over sex discrimination allegations. [...] Enforcement of the state law against discrimination, Chapter 49.60 RCW, lies with the Washington State Human Rights Commission.