1,430 result(s)
-
701.
Renton School District (UCWU Local 1), Decision 6300 (PECB, 1998) - 05/20/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice• Unions have discretion about what proposals to advance, so long as that discretion is not exercised in a manner which discriminates on the basis of union membership or other invidious grounds. [...] There are no allegations that the union’s action or inaction at issue here is based upon any unlawful discrimination. [...] RCW 41.56.040 RIGHT OF EMPLOYEES TO ORGANIZE AND DESIGNATE REPRESENTATIVES WITHOUT INTERFERENCE. No public employer, or other person, shall directly or indirectly, interfere with, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against any public employee or group of public employees in the free exercise of their right to organize and
-
702.
City of Seattle (IFPTE Local 17), Decision 5702 (PECB, 1996) - 10/31/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeI believe since there are no guidelines this violates article 1, non-discrimination. [...] of fair representation” claims where it is alleged that a union had aligned itself in interest against one or more bargaining unit employees based on unlawful considerations (e.g., race, creed, national origin, or union membership).[5] No such allegations of discrimination are advanced in either of these cases, however. [...] [5] Such discrimination would place in question the union’s right to enjoy the benefits of status as an exclusive bargaining representative under the statute.
-
703.
Leavenworth School District, Decision 533 (EDUC, 1978) - 11/07/1978
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceand medallions of fraternal organizations or social groups; and to deprive the employees the right to wear the "golden foot pin" which was obtained from Washington Education Association on its face discriminates against the employees statutory rights to support the collective bargaining representative of their choice. [...] designed to conceal the true nature and motivation of the respondents actions in that regard; the employees were discharged in reprisal for protected union activities; and by said discharge did in fact, interfere with restrain, coerce, and discriminate in the exercise of their right to engage in concerted activity. [...] (b) Discriminating against employees to encourage or discourage membership and activity on behalf of Leavenworth Education Association.
-
704.
King County, Decision 4731 (PECB, 1994) - 05/31/1994
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn August 6, 1993, Sylvester Carter filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission, alleging that King County had discriminated against him in connection with the wages he received as an employee. [...] The preliminary ruling letter also pointed out that the complaint failed to allege any reason for the alleged delay, so that there was no basis to conclude it was the result of unlawful discrimination.
-
705.
King County (SEIU Local 6), Decision 6710 (PECB, 1999) - 06/15/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn July 22, 1998, Stanwell submitted an amended complaint which alleged that employer had committed interference, domination, and discrimination violations. [...] It was noted that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to determine and remedy discrimination on the basis of sex, and that the Commission does not assert jurisdiction to remedy violations of collective bargaining agreements through the unfair labor practice provisions of the statute.
-
706.
Port of Seattle, Decision 4042 (PECB, 1992) - 04/23/1992
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Standards for Decision in Discrimination Cases Where discrimination is alleged under RCW 41.56.140(1) or RCW 41.56.150(2), and the respondent defends that it had legitimate reasons for its action, the situation is evaluated under the "dual motivation" standard adopted by the Commission in City of Olympia, Decision [...] Under the Wright Line analysis, the complainant initially has the burden of making a prima facie showing sufficient to support an inference that union discrimination was a motivating factor in the decision or action being challenged. [...] The union argues that the employer's layoff of Lindberg prior to the completion of his six-month "contract" demonstrates that he was a victim of anti-union discrimination, but the Examiner does not find the evidence sufficient to support such an inference.
-
707.
Port of Shelton, Decision 8184 (PECB, 2003) - 09/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint 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), discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge in violation of RCW 41.56.140(3), and refusal to bargain in
-
708.
City of Kirkland, Decision 12546 (PECB, 2016) - 02/11/2016
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. [...] The Washington State Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction over employment discrimination in the state of Washington. [...] The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a federal agency that also has jurisdiction over discrimination.
-
709.
Enumclaw School District (PSE of Washington), Decision 5979 (PECB, 1997) - 07/08/1997
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeMacdonald alleges that PSE discriminated against him by not allowing the custodial employees to be “released” from the bargaining unit. [...] A discrimination violation can only be found if a party is unlawfully deprived of some ascertainable right, and the “right” being asserted here does not exist. [...] The complaint fails to allege that Macdonald was deprived of any ascertainable right, status or benefit protected by the statute, and therefore fails to allege facts on which PSE could be found to have discriminated against Macdonald in breach of its duty of fair representation.
-
710.
City of Mercer Island, Decision 1580 (PECB, 1983) - 02/14/1983
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRCW 41.56.140(3) specifies that discrimination against public employees involved in filing unfair labor practices is an unfair labor practice.[2] [...] There was no actual discrimination against Hiltner in furtherance of the January 22, 1982 memorandum, and therefore no violation of RCW 41.56.140(3). [...] (3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge;
-
711.
Washington State Ferries (Marine Engineers Beneficial Association), MEC Decision 147 (1996) - 03/11/1996
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionMr. Harpham charged District No. 1 MEBA with engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of RCW 47.64.130(2) by restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of guaranteed rights, causing or attempting to cause WSF to discriminate against an employee in violation of WAC 316-45-00391) (c), and by refusing to [...] Specifically, William Harpham alleged that WSF discriminated against him in the matter of reimbursement for travel time and mileage while his assigned vessel was in the shipyard.
-
712.
West Valley School District v. Washington Education Association (1069-F-77) - 10/25/1977
DECISIONS - Fact Finding9. Teacher Rights /Non Discrimination 10. Fringe Benefits/Insurance [...] Non Discrimination. ASSOCIATION POSITION. The Association proposed the following language: [...] DISTRICT POSITION. The District submits that it is fallacious to say that it will not discriminate at all - having seperate rest rooms for men and women is a form of discrimination.
-
713.
Port of Pasco, Decision 3580 (PECB, 1990) - 09/26/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeKozak's complaint alleged that he had been discriminated against by the Port of Pasco, in reprisal for his testimony given at the hearing on the unfair labor practice charges concerning Lingle.[10] [...] Rarely has so clear a case of discrimination for union activities been developed on record. [...] b. Interfering with or discriminating against Arthur Glasow and its other employees in the exercise of their collective bargaining rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
714.
State - Health, Decision 11615 (PSRA, 2013) - 01/02/2013
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a), and 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)], by its actions involving Stan Kosciow, Crisanta Go Uy, and [...] Kosciow alleges in the statement of facts that his union representative told him that his complaint “would constitute the valid claim.” However, in materials submitted by Kosciow, his union representative told him the opposite, stating (accurately), “there is no valid claim that a ULP occurred on the basis of discrimination
-
715.
State - Transportation (Peterson Bros Inc.), Decision 9054 (PECB, 2005) - 08/15/2005
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThree, the complaint refers to allegations of race discrimination. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over allegations of race discrimination.
-
716.
Clark Public Transportation Benefit Area (IAM & AW Local 1374), Decision 6247 (PECB, 1998) - 04/01/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt was noted that the Commission does assert jurisdiction to police its certifications, where a union is alleged to have acted against a bargaining unit member for reasons that constitute invidious discrimination (e.g., disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, union activities or lack thereof), but that there were [...] An amended complaint was timely filed, but it lacked any allegations of invidious discrimination.
-
717.
Town of Steilacoom, Decision 5479 (PECB, 1996) - 03/19/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission only asserts jurisdiction over "duty of fair representation" issues where it appears that a union has acted against an employee it represents because of invidious discrimination, such as on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or handicap. [...] Nothing suggests an actual, or even potential, invidious discrimination against an bargaining unit member.
-
718.
State - Social and Health Services, Decision 10364 (PSRA, 2009) - 04/13/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a), domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(b), and discrimination for filing charges in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(d), by its actions toward Auna Nelson. [...] Under RCW 41.80.110(1)(d), it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee who has previously filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Commission or given testimony before the Commission.
-
719.
City of Seattle (Carpenters Union Local 131), Decision 5026 (PECB, 1995) - 03/10/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn November 14, 1994, David Cordaro filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission, alleging that Carpenters Union, Local 131 (union), had interfered with his rights and discriminated against him because he had filed charges. [...] The amended complaint does not allege any facts supporting the allegation the union discriminated against Cordaro for filing charges.
-
720.
Ben Franklin Transit (Teamsters Local 839), Decision 13409-A (PECB, 2022) - 07/25/2022
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeWhether conduct is reasonable is an issue when an employer has acted against an employee and the unfair labor practice complaint alleges discrimination or interference. [...] The courts and the Human Rights Commission, not this Commission, are tasked with enforcing Washington’s Law Against Discrimination and remedying workplace harassment.[2] We are not determining whether Shjerven sexually harassed Warner. [...] The employer argues that the Examiner’s decision does not adequately consider that the employer could have been subject to a retaliation claim under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) if the employer reassigned Warner because of limitations that resulted from Warner complaining about harassment.
-
721.
King County (Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587), Decision 13535 (PECB, 2022) - 07/22/2022
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] The right to be free from interference, restraint, coercion, or discrimination does not extend to every workplace complaint or dispute. [...] As noted by the agency, the collective bargaining statute does not protect employees from interference or discrimination connected to all potential workplace disputes or complaints.
-
722.
Lower Columbia College, Decision 8117-A (PSRA, 2004) - 06/30/2004
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe “induce discrimination” standard is that a violation will be found under RCW 41.56.150(2) if a union solicits or induces actual employer action against an employee in reprisal for the exercise of protected rights. [...] WPEA contends the employer discriminated against Carole Jordan in reprisal for her union activities. [...] The problem for the WPEA here is that it has not established the causal connection which is the critical third element of a prima facie case under the “discrimination” test.
-
723.
Pasco Housing Authority, Decision 5927-A (PECB, 1997) - 11/19/1997
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; [...] 2. In any other manner interfering with, discriminating against, restraining or coercing the employees in the exercise of their collective bargaining rights secured by the laws of Washington.
-
724.
Seattle Public Health Hospital (AFGE Local 1170), Decision 1911 (PECB, 1984) - 05/11/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainant contends that the respondent has discriminately enforced its medical certification requirements in reprisal for the complainant's exercise of union activity rights protected under RCW 41.56; has discriminately and deliberately enforced, changed, and implemented its rules of the workplace to interfere with [...] Based upon the record, the examiner concludes the employer has not discriminated against the complainant in retaliation for his union activities by its enforcement of its medical certificate requirement. [...] The Union recognizes its responsibility of representing the interests of all such employees without discrimination and without regard to Union Membership with respect to hours, wages and working conditions, subject to the express limitations set forth elsewhere in this Agreement.
-
725.
Washington State Ferries (Marine Engineers Beneficial Association), Decision 11688 (MRNE, 2013) - 03/22/2013
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 47.64.130(1)(a) and 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 extending a letter of understanding with the union. [...] Three, it is an unfair labor practice in violation of Chapter 47.64 RCW for an employer or union to interfere with or discriminate against an employee in connection with, or in reprisal for, the employee’s union activities.