1,430 result(s)
-
676.
Yakima Valley Community College, Decision 240 (CCOL, 1977) - 06/10/1977
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeWe charge this is a blatant case of discrimination against an officer of the Union and a prima facie case of anti-union activity on the part of the Board. [...] This action admits that the District had in fact singled out Ms. Mack, and the entire actions prove a blatant case of discrimination and prima facie evidence of anti-union activity on the part of the Board. [...] "(3) That the District reinstate Mr. Gaddy and Ms. Mack in their appointments and grant tenure to them as well as the other academic employees who were arbitrarily discriminated against in an attempt to cover up the earlier anti-union actions.
-
677.
City of Seattle, Decision 9938-A (PECB, 2009) - 02/19/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeDiscrimination, Interference, Coercion The Examiner’s decision accurately details Commission precedent on discrimination and interference and we will not repeat the overview of the law here. [...] With respect to the claim of discrimination, the union cannot establish that the employer discriminatorily deprived bargaining unit employees of a right or benefit. [...] The Examiner correctly concluded that the employer did not discriminate against or interfere with employee rights by not granting the ordinance-based wage increase to represented employees.
-
678.
City of Vancouver, Decision 6732 (PECB, 1999) - 07/14/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union contends the lack of proof of Sharma’s race, national origin, or other basis of invidious discrimination precludes the employer from relying on this justification for its actions. [...] The employer may be able to make a case of discrimination on the basis of race or national origin in the appropriate forum but those claims aren’t before me, so I don’t have to decide whether to take administrative notice of my observations of Sharma, who attended both days of hearing but wasn’t called to testify. [...] of Seattle, Decisions 3294-B, 3295-B (PECB 1992).An employer must exercise diligence to avoid being induced by a union to commit an unfair labor practice, such as discriminating against an employee at the union’s request or permitting its operational procedures to be bent to accomplish such discrimination.
-
679.
King County (Washington State Nurses Association), Decision 10172-B (PECB, 2011) - 01/05/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeBrown’s complaint alleged that the union interfered with her rights as an employee in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), and discriminated against her in violation of RCW 41.56.150(3), when the union invoked internal union processes and disciplined her for filing a decertification representation petition. [...] On January 2, 2008, Brown filed an amended complaint and withdrew the discrimination claim. [...] In Clark County, Decision 9127-A (PECB, 2007), the Commission said “This Commission closely scrutinizes claims of discrimination or reprisal against employees who invoke the Commission’s processes.”
-
680.
City of Port Angeles, Decision 10445-A (PECB, 2010) - 05/11/2010
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn June 17, 2009, the Unfair Labor Practice Manager issued a preliminary ruling and partial dismissal order, finding causes of action for an employer interference violation, but dismissing a discrimination allegation. [...] Related to this, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with or discriminate against employees in the exercise of their statutory right to file and pursue grievances. [...] There was no interference or discrimination in Klarr’s phone conversation with Manning.
-
681.
East Wenatchee Water District, Decision 1392 (PECB, 1982) - 03/04/1982
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint charging unfair labor practices alleges (and the employer's answer denies) that Keesee has been discriminated against for his exercise of rights under RCW 41.56. [...] The ambit of the hearing was limited to consideration only of the anti-union animus/discrimination allegations which would constitute statutory violations under RCW 41.56.140. [...] The record fails to substantiate any anti-union animus or discrimination by the employer in the discharge of Keesee.
-
682.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 13733 (PSRA, 2023) - 11/03/2023
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAccording to the complaint, the employer instituted a COVID-19 vaccination mandate in 2021 and then allegedly engaged in religious discrimination and threatened Taylor with termination. [...] The 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.
-
683.
Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 13734 (PSRA, 2023) - 11/03/2023
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAccording to the complaint, the employer instituted a COVID-19 vaccination mandate in 2021 and then allegedly engaged in religious discrimination and threatened Bropas with termination. [...] The 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.
-
684.
City of Redmond (International Association of Fire Fighters Local 2829), Decision 13311 (PECB, 2021) - 02/18/2021
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. [...] The Commission asserts jurisdiction when an employee alleges its union aligned itself in interest against employees it represents based on invidious discrimination.
-
685.
Washington State Ferries (Marine Engineers Beneficial Association), MEC Decision 290 (2002) - 11/07/2001
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionThe complaining party must show that the union was motivated by a desire to invidiously discriminate against the individual by deliberately sabotaging his or her case. [...] 4. The only discrimination alleged is that the arbitrator applied a standard different from that applied to other employees in reaching his decision. [...] The allegation that the arbitrator erred or even that the arbitrator's alleged error was based on union negligence in the manner in which the case was presented, does not supply the absent element of alleged invidious discrimination by the union.
-
686.
Douglas County, Decision 1220 (PECB, 1981) - 08/07/1981
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(1) The background, i.e., is there a history of employer hostility and discrimination? [...] (1) There is very little to show any pattern of employer hostility and discrimination. [...] There is no history of employer hostility or discrimination. In fact, the County Engineer testified that he has, for the most part, final say on employment and he himself has been a member of a bargaining unit (Local 17, PTE, King County) and still belongs to the union.
-
687.
Mukilteo School District (Mukilteo Education Association), Decision 1122 (EDUC, 1981) - 03/30/1981
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(c) To encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization by discrimination in regard to hire, tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, but nothing contained in this subsection shall prevent an employer from requiring, as a condition of continued employment, payment of periodic dues and fees [...] (d) To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he has filed charges or given testimony under this chapter; [...] (b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (1) (c) of this section;
-
688.
City of Redmond (Redmond City Hall Employees Association), Decision 12617 (PECB, 2016) - 09/19/2016
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeA classic scenario occurs when a union induces the employer to discriminate against an employee based upon union membership. [...] The Commission explained that the mere designation of “part-time” status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination. [...] Employees covered by Chapter 41.56 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.
-
689.
City of Tacoma, Decision 12533 (PECB, 2016) - 01/21/2016
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. [...] The facts in the complaint do not describe discrimination, bad faith, or arbitrary conduct by the union.
-
690.
Kitsap County, Decision 12022 (PECB, 2014) - 03/31/2014
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit made to all bargaining unit members in connection with union activities regarding the Pamela Morris (Morris) grievance arbitration; and discrimination [...] • it discriminates against Morris by threatening to deprive her of wages if she does not drop her grievance. [...] Although grievance arbitrations are contractual matters outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction, the union alleges that the employer’s offer of settlement constitutes interference and discrimination.
-
691.
State - Patrol (WSP Troopers Association), Decision 5887 (PECB, 1997) - 05/09/1997
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof the employee’s exercise of rights protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW, as in City of Seattle, Decision 3199-A (PECB, 1989), or because of some other invidious discrimination that would place in question the right of the union to enjoy the benefits of status as “exclusive bargaining representative” under RCW 41.56.080. [...] It was noted that there were no allegations of discrimination by the union on any of the traditional invidious grounds, such as race, sex, religion, or national origin. [...] Paragraph 8 also appears to use terminology suggested by the deficiency notice issued in this case, in alleging that the union “invidiously” discriminated when it chose to pursue a grievance on behalf of a former board member while refusing to pursue the complainant’s grievance about the investigation which followed the
-
692.
Port of Seattle, Decision 4106 (PECB, 1992) - 06/15/1992
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn amended complaint filed on January 24, 1992 added an allegation that the Port of Seattle had engaged in "employer discrimination". [...] "Discrimination" Allegations The "process" rules established by the Legislature do prohibit employers from discriminating against employees in reprisal for their lawful union activities.
-
693.
Port of Seattle (ILWU Local 9), Decision 2661-A (PECB, 1988) - 03/01/1988
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn January 26, 1987, Gene Minetti (complainant) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission, alleging that the Port of Seattle (employer) had violated RCW 41.59.140 (1) (d)[1] by discrimination in reprisal for the complainant's previous filing of unfair labor practice [...] The question is not "fairness", however, but whether the employer's actions rise to the level of an "interference with exercise of protected rights" or "discrimination for filing charges" unfair labor practice within the meaning of Chapter 41.56 RCW. [...] The complainant has failed to prove that the employer's actions were motivated by some intent to discriminate or to retaliate against him because of other litigation pending before the Commission.
-
694.
Port of Tacoma (ILWU Local 28), Decision 1396-A (PECB, 1983) - 01/18/1983
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRCW 49.60 is the state statute prohibiting discrimination in employment. [...] The claimant's letter of October 8, 1980, informed the union of three derelictions claimant charged against the Port, but discrimination on account of race is not among them. [...] The complainant alleged that the reason for the breach of the union's duty of fair representation was racial discrimination because the complainant is black.
-
695.
City of Seattle, Decision 1199 (PECB, 1981) - 07/13/1981
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeSince allegations of discrimination are involved, complainant urges the Public Employment Relations Commission to follow recent National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) policy concerning deferral to arbitration awards. [...] The complainant's only challenge to deferral rests with an argument that Arbitrator Peterson did not address the statutory violation concerning discrimination against the bargaining unit as a whole. [...] Examination of Arbitrator Peterson's award shows that the issue of discrimination was considered.
-
696.
Snohomish County, Decision 8852 (PECB, 2005) - 01/31/2005
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice[10] The original complaint filed by the association contained an allegation of “interference with employee rights.” It did not indicate an allegation of “employer discrimination.” Therefore, the preliminary ruling did not list a cause of action for discrimination. [...] Therefore, this Examiner cannot address the allegation of employer discrimination, even though both the association and employer incorrectly argued the elements of discrimination, and did not address the independent interference allegation.
-
697.
Metro Parks District of Tacoma, Decision 2272 (PECB, 1986) - 01/09/1986
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt strains credibility, even in the presence of the interference violation committed by Otten, to suggest that the employer's upgrade of minimum qualifications for personnel working in its main business was part of some grand design to discriminate against Pearce by precluding her transfer from her "overhead" job. [...] These incidents are not sufficient to base a finding that there was a pattern of discrimination being practiced here by the employer. [...] Interfering or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of the exercise of protected activities under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
698.
King County, Decision 7819 (PECB, 2002) - 08/28/2002
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeChapter 41.56 RCW prohibits employers from interfering with or discriminating against public employees who exercise the collective bargaining rights secured by the statute: [...] (3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] [5] The Examiner accepts that paragraph 4 could have been an attempt by the employer to give assurances that it will not discriminate against distribution of material protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW, but the words actually used sufficiently disguise such an intent to leave room for employees to read paragraph 4 otherwise.
-
699.
Town of Steilacoom, Decision 6213 (PECB, 1998) - 02/18/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint was processed pursuant to the preliminary ruling procedure of WAC 391-45-110, and was found to state a cause of action as to a “discrimination” claim. [...] The employer also denies discriminating against Green, and denies he was discharged in reprisal for his union activity. [...] A complainant claiming unlawful discrimination must first make out a prima facie case, showing:
-
700.
City of Bellingham, Decision 10907 (PECB, 2010) - 10/28/2010
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn May 6, 2010, the Bellingham Police Guild (union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the City of Bellingham (employer) alleging employer interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain violations concerning the threatened layoff of three bargaining unit members. [...] 2. Employer discrimination [and if so, derivative “interference”] in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by its final contract offer to the union, in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW; and [...] 4. Based on the complaint, a preliminary ruling was issued on May 13, 2010, finding causes of action to exist for employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) [and if so derivative “interference” in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], employer discrimination [and if so, derivative “interference”] in violation of