1,430 result(s)
-
576.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (METRO) (ATU Local 587), Decision 2746 (PECB, 1987) - 08/14/1987
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint does not allege that he has somehow been "singled out" by the union for disparate treatment, or otherwise discriminated against because of the exercise of rights guaranteed by the collective bargaining statute or because of other invidious discrimination. [...] The Public Employment Relations Commission continues to process "duty of fair representation" claims involving discrimination in the collective bargaining process.
-
577.
City of Orting, Decision 7959-A (PECB, 2003) - 07/14/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeCity of Orting, Decision 7959.With respect to the claim of discrimination for union activity, the Examiner ruled that (although the filing of grievances is an activity protected by the statute even for a probationary employee), Santos was not deprived of any ascertainable right, status or benefit. [...] Moreover, the employer argues that the Commission should adopt the Examiner’s reasoning that the discrimination claim fails once the allegations regarding the discharge are dismissed from the complaint. [...] [2] Santos alleged that he looked into filing a discrimination complaint after his conversation with the mayor, but he apparently did not proceed in that direction.
-
578.
Spokane School District (Spokane Education Association), Decision 5151 (PECB, 1995) - 06/08/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeDiscrimination and retaliation by the employer and union for filing and processing a grievance concerning assignment of overtime. [...] The "discrimination for filing and processing a grievance" theory posed in the earlier preliminary ruling is not borne out by more detailed examination of the materials. [...] As long as there are no threats of reprisals or of force, and no unlawful discrimination, it is not necessary for union officials to achieve absolute equality and complete satisfaction on the part of all of their members.
-
579.
City of Yakima, Decision 9451-A (PECB, 2006) - 10/20/2006
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. Did the employer discriminate and derivatively interfere with collective bargaining rights when it discharged police officer Michael Rummel? [...] When a union alleges that an employer discriminated against those engaging in protected activity, the union must first prove three basic facts to establish a prima facie case: [...] Granato’s comments, in and of themselves, do not constitute discrimination.
-
580.
City of Yakima, Decision 9451 (PECB, 2006) - 10/06/2006
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. Did the employer discriminate and derivatively interfere with collective bargaining rights when it discharged police officer Michael Rummel? [...] When a union alleges that an employer discriminated against those engaging in protected activity, the union must first prove three basic facts to establish a prima facie case: [...] Granato’s comments, in and of themselves, do not constitute discrimination.
-
581.
Snohomish Public Hospital District 2, Decision 4358 (PECB, 1993) - 04/28/1993
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt therein clarified its "discrimination" and "refusal to bargain" allegations, and it dropped an allegation concerning an improper administration of dues checkoff. [...] The union contends that the exclusion of bargaining unit employees from weekend premiums was unlawful discrimination. [...] The Commission has endorsed use of a burden-shifting analysis in deciding discrimination claims.
-
582.
Washington State Ferries (William Ray), MEC Decision 73 (1991) - 03/13/1991
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionIn addition, on the advice of a member of the WSF discrimination committee, they filed complaints of discriminatory discipline with that committee. [...] Those complaints were dismissed on the grounds that said discrimination committee dealt only with complaints of racial, sexual or ethnic discrimination. [...] The officers were reluctant to insist on being obeyed, because at the time several charges of racial discrimination had been filed against WSF or certain officers.
-
583.
METRO, Decision 2442 (PECB, 1986) - 05/07/1986
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRespondent asserts that complainant failed to make a prima facie showing of the occurrence of any sort of interference or discrimination. [...] However, it is possible for a discriminatory discharge to be proved where an individual complainant, although not a union activist, is discharged or otherwise discriminated against in an effort by the employer to disguise its unlawful discrimination against others. [...] There is no evidence in the record that the language of the section concerning discipline of probationers came about as a result of collusion, or an intent to discriminate.
-
584.
Puyallup School District, Decision 12551 (PECB, 2016) - 03/07/2016
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe employer gave the complainant clear and unequivocal notice of the actions giving rise to the discrimination and refusal to bargain allegations on July 28, 2014. [...] The Examiner finds that the complaint alleging discrimination and unilateral change was not timely filed within the statute of limitations period. [...] As such, the analysis of the discrimination allegation ceases with the finding that the complaint was untimely.
-
585.
Port of Pasco (IAFF Local 3173), Decision 3307 (PECB, 1989) - 10/05/1989
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe decision in Housing Authority of the City of Bremerton, Decision 3168 (PECB, 1989), presents an example of an employer that successfully defended against an inference of anti-union discrimination. [...] b Interfering with or discriminating against its airport maintenance, security and custodial employees in the exercise of their collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW. [...] c Interfering with or discriminating against Roderick Lingle for his exercise of his collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
586.
State - Social and Health Services (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 9548-A (PSRA, 2007) - 05/09/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe only issue before the Commission is whether Smith’s amended complaint alleging union interference and discrimination with employee rights states a cause of action that could be remedied by this Commission under RCW 41.80.140. [...] [3] RCW 42.17.680(2) prohibits labor organizations from discriminating against employees for political activities. [...] The Public Disclosure Commission, and not this Commission, administers that statute, and has jurisdiction over allegations that a labor organization is discriminating against an employee for political beliefs.
-
587.
Snohomish County, Decision 7122 (PECB, 2000) - 07/19/2000
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations concern: (1) Unilateral change of working conditions; (2) Refusal to provide information; and (3) Employer discrimination based on religion. [...] The deficiency notice indicated that a discrimination violation can only be found under RCW 41. 56. 140(1) where the alleged conduct involves the exercise of collective bargaining rights guaranteed by Chapter 41. 56 RCW. The deficiency notice stated that the complaint failed to contain any allegations of this nature. [...] 3. The third allegation concerning employer discrimination based on religion under RCW 41. 56. 140(1) is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
-
588.
Spokane County, Decision 5428 (PECB, 1996) - 01/25/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeParagraph 8 was found to state a cause of action for "discrimination" by giving preference to a non-union applicant, subject to the complaint supplying the name of the beneficiary of the alleged discrimination.[2] [...] [2] The complainant has subsequently identified the beneficiary of the alleged discrimination as M. Kathryn Lee.
-
589.
Pe Ell School District (Pe Ell Education Association), Decision 3801 (EDUC, 1991) - 06/12/1991
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. Discrimination by the union in negotiating a salary schedule which disadvantages the complainant, because of his activities protected by Chapter 41.59 RCW. [...] Thus, the complaint states a cause of action to the extent that it alleges that the union has discriminated against the complainant because of his lack of membership or other protected activities, in negotiating a salary schedule for the bargaining unit. [...] 2. Examiner Mark S. Downing is designated to conduct further proceedings with respect to the allegation that the Pe Ell Education Association discriminated against the complainant, because of his protected activities, in the negotiation of a salary schedule.
-
590.
Northshore Utility District, Decision 10534 (PECB, 2009) - 09/10/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeI find that the employer did not interfere or discriminate when it terminated Cherie L’Heureux for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. [...] The employer did not interfere in Doug Wittinger’s employee rights or discriminate against him when it laid him off for budgetary reasons. [...] Chapter 41.56 RCW prohibits employer interference with, or discrimination against, employees for exercising their collective bargaining rights.
-
591.
Washington State Ferries, Decision 11220 (MRNE, 2011) - 11/04/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer discrimination in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(a)], by actions concerning Moniz. [...] The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over discrimination claims against employers only when those charges are directly related to union activities. [...] The amended complaint explicitly identifies the allegations as concerning discrimination due to age, gender, and race.
-
592.
King County, Decision 11221 (PECB, 2011) - 11/04/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer discrimination in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(a)], by actions concerning Moniz. [...] The Public Employment Relations Commission has jurisdiction over discrimination claims against employers only when those charges are directly related to union activities. [...] The amended complaint explicitly identifies the allegations as concerning discrimination due to age, gender, and race.
-
593.
Bellevue School District, Decision 11147 (PECB, 2011) - 08/22/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference, domination or assistance of a union, discrimination, and discrimination for filing charges, in violation of Chapter 41.56 RCW, by actions toward Dougherty. [...] The only claim made in relation to the hearing appears to be alleged discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice complaint.
-
594.
City of Seattle, Decision 9439 (PECB, 2006) - 09/27/2006
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn June 1, 2006, an amended complaint was filed charging employer interference and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1). [...] The jurisdiction of the Public Employment Relations Commission in this matter flows from 41.56 RCW. RCW 41.56.140 prohibits employers and unions from interfering with or discriminating with respect to the exercise of employee rights secured by the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act. The jurisdiction of the City of [...] Therefore, allegations that the discharge was unlawful discrimination, in violation of Chapter 41.56 RCW, are properly brought before the Public Employment Relations Commission.
-
595.
Peninsula College, Decision 5017 (CCOL, 1995) - 03/10/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice5. "Discrimination in reprisal for lawful union activity" by the discharge of instructors Foss, Parsinen, Streeter, and vom Steeg on June 30, 1994. [...] A union's legal standing to pursue "interference", "domination" or "discrimination" allegations does not depend on having status as the exclusive bargaining representative of any bargaining unit, so the original complainant still had standing to pursue the fifth allegation identified above. [...] [3] The employer's answer was accompanied by reinstatement letters addressed to the four alleged discriminates, and by salary calculations which are subject to the interpretation that they have already been made whole for any loss of pay and benefits which they may have suffered.
-
596.
Snohomish County Public Utility District 1 (IBEW Local 77), Decision 4962 (PECB, 1995) - 01/26/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeWithout some indication that the union discriminated against him in its representation because of some protected activity on his part, such a matter would be outside of the Commission's jurisdiction . . . [...] The supplemental materials do not, however, indicate any claim or basis for a claim of discrimination against the complainant. [...] The Commission will police its certifications by determining allegations that an exclusive bargaining representative has aligned itself in interest against employees it is charged to represent, based on some invidious discrimination.
-
597.
City of Kent, Decision 4835 (PECB, 1994) - 09/20/1994
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union asserted that the employer's actions constituted unlawful interference, domination, discrimination, and refusal to bargain. [...] A preliminary ruling letter issued on May 17, 1994, pursuant to WAC 391-45-110,[1] found a cause of action to exist with respect to the claim that the employer's alleged actions constituted unlawful "interference" and "discrimination". [...] 2. The allegations regarding changes in and removal of work historically performed by members of the supervisory bargaining unit state causes of action for "interference" and "discrimination".
-
598.
Port of Seattle, Decision 4110 (PECB, 1992) - 06/15/1992
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn October 16, 1991, Michael T. Barth filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission, alleging "employer interference with employee rights", "employer discrimination", "union interference with employee rights" and "violation of Loudermill rights".[1] These cases concern the [...] The Public Employment Relations Commission would hear and determine allegations of "antiunion discrimination", but that is not alleged here. [...] Various local, state and federal agencies may hear and determine cases involving discrimination on the basis of race, sex, creed, etc., but the Commission has no jurisdiction in such matters.
-
599.
Spokane County (WSCCCE), Decision 4073 (PECB, 1992) - 05/12/1992
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint appears to allege that the union engaged in bad faith bargaining and discriminated against him by agreeing to the seniority language contained in the collective bargaining agreement;[2] that the union violated the contract by taking too long to render a decision with respect to his grievance; and that the [...] It is unlawful for parties to a bargaining relationship to discriminate against a particular individual or group of individuals in fashioning the language of their collective bargaining agreement, but that is not what is alleged here. [...] Apart from the timeliness of the complaint, the complainant would have needed to bring forth facts showing a purposeful discrimination.
-
600.
Stevens County (Teamsters Local 690), Decision 1903 (PECB, 1984) - 04/06/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceexecuted; that the uniform allowance was in fact delayed; that no other existing conditions of employment or benefits were changed; and that the employer has interrogated employees and interfered with their rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW. Additional allegations concern discrimination against an employee by the employer. [...] a cause of action under RCW 41.56.140(4), rather than under any of the provisions cited by the complainant; that the union, rather than an individual employee, would have to act as complainant in any "refusal to bargain" proceeding; and that the discrimination allegations were so vague as to be insufficient for processing. [...] He withdrew the discrimination allegations, and asked that the Commission proceed on the unilateral change allegations of the original complaint.