1,430 result(s)
-
626.
Seattle Colleges, Decision 13682 (CCOL, 2023) - 06/29/2023
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeUnion interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1) within six months of the date the complaint was filed, by breaching its duty of fair representation for unidentified actions on an invidious discrimination, arbitrary, or bad faith basis. [...] The complaint alleges the union has failed to address discrimination in the employer’s executing ADA policy. [...] The complaint alleges the union failed to address alleged discrimination in the employer’s executing ADA policy but does not provide facts on what did or did not occur or how the union’s action was in bad faith, arbitrary or discriminatory.
-
627.
City of Snoqualmie (Snoqualmie Police Assocation), Decision 12249 (PECB, 2015) - 01/16/2015
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Unfair Labor Practice Manager finds causes of action for union interference, employer interference, and employer discrimination. [...] Employer Discrimination Employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(3), [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1),] by placing Sylvain on paid administrative leave beginning on May 7, 2014, in reprisal for filing a grievance and engaging in union activities protected by Chapter 41.56
-
628.
City of Kelso, Decision 2633-A (PECB, 1988) - 10/17/1988
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeFinally, we do not defer "discrimination" charges made under RCW 41.56.140(1),[9] and such a charge has been made with respect to these layoffs. [...] Against this background it is not difficult to infer the city may have acted out of anti-Union animus, and so have discriminated against the employees represented by the union for pursuing their statutory rights. [...] [2] In a decision dated April 8, 1985, an arbitrator ruled that the city had violated the labor agreement by demoting Buley without just cause and discriminated against him on account of his union membership.
-
629.
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Decision 13820 (PSRA, 2024) - 04/16/2024
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn March 22, 2023, Fornara filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint against the Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF) alleging Weingarten violations and employer discrimination in retaliation for Fornara filing an unfair labor practice complaint. [...] After considering the responses, the ULP Administrator issued a decision finding a cause of action for employer discrimination in retaliation for filing an unfair labor practice complaint and dismissing Weingarten allegations. [...] 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.
-
630.
Timberland Regional Library (Washington State Council of County and City Employees), Decision 13694 (PECB, 2023) - 07/18/2023
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission will assert jurisdiction in duty of fair representation cases only where a union is accused of aligning itself in interest against employees it represents based on invidious discrimination. [...] Painter has not alleged that the union failed to process her grievance based upon invidious discrimination. [...] Absent facts demonstrating the union declined to process Painter’s grievance due to invidious discrimination, this allegation must be dismissed.
-
631.
Yakima School District, Decision 11106 (EDUC, 2011) - 06/27/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a) and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(c) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a)], by its actions toward Abdo. [...] Two, Chapter 41.59 RCW prohibits interference and discrimination in reprisal for union activities protected by that statute. [...] In addition, a cause of action for discrimination requires a showing that the employee was unlawfully deprived of ascertainable rights, benefits, or status.
-
632.
King County, Decision 6772 (PECB, 1999) - 07/30/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union argues that the employer’s refusal to make the witnesses available for the grievance process was due to the pendency of discrimination complaints being independently pursued by the grievant, and it reasons that the employer’s refusal is tantamount to conditioning bargaining on a non-mandatory subject of [...] right to determine whether to pursue a grievance to the individual grievant, in derogation of the union’s status as the collective bargaining representative, and has in effect unlawfully conditioned bargaining over the grievance upon the grievant’s relinquishment of a statutory right to file an action for discrimination. [...] • No precedent is cited or found for the proposition that anemployer’s refusal to supply its official (s) for interrogation by a union has a per se legal effect of conditioning processing of the grievance upon the grievant withdrawing his discrimination claim or causing the union to abdicate its control of the grievance
-
633.
City of Federal Way (WSCCCE), Decision 4495-A (PECB, 1994) - 07/25/1994
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeWe thus turn our attention first to the alleged discrimination against Bray and Snyder. [...] For many years, the Commission applied a two-stage analysis in "discrimination" cases. [...] The union's attempt to portray Bray and Snyder as relatively blameless victims of employer discrimination was not persuasive to the Examiner, and has not persuaded the Commission.
-
634.
King County (PSE Local 519), Decision 5544 (PECB, 1996) - 05/23/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt was also noted that the Public Employment Relations Commission has no jurisdiction to hear or determine allegations of discrimination on the basis of a disability.[3] [...] There is no allegation that the union president was motivated by invidious discrimination that would be a basis for proceedings before the Commission. [...] There is no reference to discrimination based on invidious grounds such as race, creed, sex or union membership, so this is not a matter within the Commission's jurisdiction.
-
635.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 127 (1994) - 10/26/1994
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionRULE 5 – NON-DISCRIMINATION 5.01 The Parties will not discriminate against any employee for activity, or lack thereof, on behalf of membership in the Union. [...] Neither the Employer nor the Union will discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, sex, age, color, or national origin, in a manner which is in violation of applicable State or Federal laws. [...] 4. Regarding the charge of discrimination pursuant to Agreement Rule 5.01, MEBA did not provide evidence that WSF had reinstated any other person who had been dismissed because of acts influenced by alcoholism, but who had denied having a problem and had refused treatment until after dismissal and then suffered relapses
-
636.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 97 (1993) - 08/09/1993
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionRULE 5 – NON-DISCRIMINATION 5.01 The Parties will not discriminate against any employee for activity, or lack thereof, on behalf of membership in the Union. [...] Neither the Employer nor the Union will discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, sex, age, color, or national origin, in a manner which is in violation of applicable State or Federal laws. [...] 4. Regarding the charge of discrimination pursuant to Agreement Rule 5.01, MEBA did not provide evidence that WSF had reinstated any other person who had been dismissed because of acts influenced by alcoholism, but who had denied having a problem and had refused treatment until after dismissal and then suffered relapses
-
637.
Spokane Transit Authority, Decision 2078 (PECB, 1984) - 12/17/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe examiner concludes that the complainant has made out a prima facie case of anti‑union discrimination, thus shifting the burden to the employer to show that its demotion of Closson would have occurred regardless of his protected activities. [...] 2. By demoting Michael L. Closson from supervisor to driver, Spokane Transit Authority discriminated against the complainant because of the claimant's protected activities and violated RCW 41.56.140(1). [...] a. Demoting any employee engaged in a protected activity because of anti‑union discrimination.
-
638.
Washington State Individual Providers, Decision 13226 (PECB, 2020) - 08/25/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt is an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against employees for engaging in union activity. [...] An employer unlawfully discriminates against an employee when it takes action in reprisal for the employee’s exercise of rights protected by chapter 41.56 RCW. University of Washington, Decision 11091-A (PSRA, 2012); Educational Service District 114, Decision 4361-A (PECB, 1994). [...] The complainant maintains the burden of proof in discrimination cases.
-
639.
Federal Way School District (Public School Employees of Washington), Decision 12827 (PECB, 2018) - 01/30/2018
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeDuring these disciplinary actions, Ms. Butts alleges Barbara Johnson, union field representative, failed to properly represent Ms. Butts because of race discrimination. [...] The amended complaint additionally alleges that the union has continued, since the November 4, 2015, discipline, to racially discriminate and not represent Ms. Butts during the last two school terms, September 2016 to June 2017 and September 2017 to present. [...] The amended complaint makes a generalized allegation that the union has committed a continuing violation to not represent Ms. Butts based on racial discrimination from September 2016 to the present.
-
640.
City of Pasco (Pasco Police Officers' Association), Decision 11018 (PECB, 2011) - 03/08/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concerned union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), 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 discrimination for filing charges with the [...] Four, it is an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.150(3) for a union to discriminate against an employee for filing an unfair labor practice complaint or testifying before the Commission. [...] As with the complaint, the rebuttal fails to state causes of action for union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.150(2) [and derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1)], and discrimination for
-
641.
Kitsap County, Decision 8292 (PECB, 2003) - 11/18/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the amended complaint and reply now include interference and discrimination allegations in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (3). [...] The Commission does not defer interference or discrimination allegations to arbitration or any other forum. [...] However, the same cannot be said for interference and discrimination allegations, where an arbitrator, drawing his or her authority from the collective bargaining agreement, has no authority or jurisdiction parallel to that conferred upon the Commission by RCW 41.56.140(1) and (3), and 41.56.160.
-
642.
Tacoma School District (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 286), Decision 8202 (PECB, 2003) - 09/15/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Public Employment Relations Commission does not have jurisdiction over allegations of racial discrimination. [...] The allegations of the complaint in Case 17740-U-03-4592 concern employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2), and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by its conduct involving grievances [...] Second, in reference to the allegations of discrimination under RCW 41.56.140(1), the complaint fails to allege facts indicating that the employer’s actions were taken in reprisal for union activities protected under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
643.
Enumclaw School District (PSE of Washington), Decision 5936 (PECB, 1997) - 06/05/1997
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Discrimination Allegation The complaint alleges that PSE denied a request for “release” of the custodians from the bargaining unit. [...] Macdonald alleges that PSE thereby discriminated against him, but a discrimination violation can only be found if a party is unlawfully deprived of some ascertainable right or benefit.
-
644.
Auburn School District (Auburn Education Association), Decision 3406 (EDUC, 1990) - 01/30/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeHis allegations are based on the premise that the union must negotiate equal rights and benefits for all bargaining unit employees.[1] He does not allege that he has been discriminated against on account of any of the traditional bases for invidious discrimination (race, creed, sex, national origin, etc.) or because of his [...] [T]he exclusive agent's statutory authority to represent all members of a designated unit includes a statutory obligation to serve the interest of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct. ...
-
645.
Othello School District (PSE of Washington), Decision 3037 (PECB, 1988) - 11/04/1988
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe doctrine of the duty of fair representation was judicially developed by the United States Supreme Court in a proceeding involving racial discrimination that was brought under the Railway Labor Act. Steele v. Louisville and Nashville, 323 U.S. 192 (1944). [...] In that case, the Court held that "an exclusive bargaining representative has the duty to represent fairly and without discrimination all those for whom it acts." [...] If the allegation concerns discrimination in the bargaining process, the Commission processes the complaint.
-
646.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 13389 (PSRA, 2021) - 08/10/2021
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission will assert jurisdiction in duty of fair representation cases only where a union is accused of aligning itself in interest against employees it represents based on invidious discrimination. [...] Turner has not alleged in either his complaint or amended complaint that the union failed to process his grievance based upon invidious discrimination, such as on the basis of his race. [...] Absent facts demonstrating the union declined to process Turner’s grievance due to invidious discrimination, this agency will not exercise jurisdiction over allegation that a union violated the collective bargaining agreement by failing to submit a grievance to arbitration.
-
647.
City of Spokane (Spokane Police Guild), Decision 13339 (PECB, 2021) - 05/04/2021
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe duty of fair representation originated with decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States holding that an exclusive bargaining representative has the duty to fairly represent all of those for whom it acts, without discrimination. [...] 1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] Furthermore, while a union owes a duty of fair representation to bargaining unit employees, the Commission asserts jurisdiction in duty of fair representation cases only when an employee alleges its union aligned itself in interest against employees it represents based on invidious discrimination.
-
648.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 12993 (PSRA, 2019) - 04/25/2019
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe duty of fair representation requires an exclusive bargaining representative to fairly represent all of those for whom it acts, without discrimination. [...] 1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] Employees covered by Chapter 41.80 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 restraint, coercion, or discrimination.
-
649.
Washington State Ferries, Decision 11335-A (MRNE, 2012) - 09/04/2012
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn his complaint filed on February 12, 2010, Pearson alleged that the Washington State Ferries (employer) committed unfair labor practices by interfering, dominating, discriminating or refusing to bargain in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1) when it terminated his employment. [...] In fact, notwithstanding his assertions, Pearson submitted no evidence which showed that the employer interfered with the pursuit of his union rights, or dominated or provided unlawful assistance to the union, discriminated against him, or refused to bargain.[2] We feel it is important to note here, as the Examiner did in [...] We find that the employer did not interfere, dominate, discriminate or refuse to bargain in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1).
-
650.
City of Tukwila, Decision 10536 (PECB, 2009) - 09/16/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4), by its (a) unilateral change in the work schedule of the day shift bargaining unit members working as Fire Prevention Officers, [...] The union checked the box on the complaint form to allege employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1). [...] 3. The allegations of the complaint concerning employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW; and interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW