1,430 result(s)
-
801.
Pierce County, Decision 13125 (PECB, 2020) - 01/06/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission explained that the mere designation of “part-time” status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination. [...] Nothing in the alleged facts demonstrates the union asked the employer to contemplate a statutory unfair labor practice and nothing in the complaint suggest that the corrections sergeants are a classification protected from invidious discrimination.
-
802.
Pierce County, Decision 13128 (PECB, 2020) - 01/06/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission explained that the mere designation of “part-time” status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination. [...] Nothing in the alleged facts demonstrates the union asked the employer to contemplate a statutory unfair labor practice and nothing in the complaint suggest that the corrections sergeants are a classification protected from invidious discrimination.
-
803.
Pierce County, Decision 13126 (PECB, 2020) - 01/06/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission explained that the mere designation of “part-time” status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination. [...] Nothing in the alleged facts demonstrates the union asked the employer to contemplate a statutory unfair labor practice and nothing in the complaint suggest that the corrections sergeants are a classification protected from invidious discrimination.
-
804.
Pierce County, Decision 13120 (PECB, 2020) - 01/06/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission explained that the mere designation of “part-time” status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination. [...] Nothing in the alleged facts demonstrates the union asked the employer to contemplate a statutory unfair labor practice and nothing in the complaint suggest that the corrections sergeants are a classification protected from invidious discrimination.
-
805.
Pierce County, Decision 13123 (PECB, 2020) - 01/06/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission explained that the mere designation of “part-time” status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination. [...] Nothing in the alleged facts demonstrates the union asked the employer to contemplate a statutory unfair labor practice and nothing in the complaint suggest that the corrections sergeants are a classification protected from invidious discrimination.
-
806.
Pike Place Market Preservation Development Authority (Teamsters Local 117), Decision 12961 (PECB, 2019) - 01/07/2019
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.
-
807.
Southwest Washington Agency on Aging and Disabilities (OPEIU Local 11), Decision 11703-B (PECB, 2013) - 05/21/2013
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn February 25, 2013,[1] Quan Minh Tran (Tran) filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging that the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 11 (union) interfered with employee rights, induced the employer to commit an unfair labor practice, and discriminated against Tran. [...] Specifically, Tran’s complaint did not conform to WAC 391-45-050(2), failed to allege facts that the union interfered with or discriminated against Tran for his union activities, and failed to allege facts that the union induced the employer to take unlawful action against Tran.
-
808.
City of Vancouver, Decision 10623 (PECB, 2009) - 12/14/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn employer's actual or attempted control of a union through assistance, ranging from favoritism to a full-fledged company union, is deleterious to the collective bargaining rights of employees; however, those actions are distinct from interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain violations. [...] A union alleging that an employer is interfering with, discriminating against, or refusing to bargain with the union should file complaints based upon those allegations.
-
809.
City of Vancouver, Decision 10622 (PECB, 2009) - 12/14/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn employer's actual or attempted control of a union through assistance, ranging from favoritism to a full-fledged company union, is deleterious to the collective bargaining rights of employees; however, those actions are distinct from interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain violations. [...] A union alleging that an employer is interfering with, discriminating against, or refusing to bargain with the union should file complaints based upon those allegations.
-
810.
Kittitas County, Decision 10560 (PECB, 2009) - 10/01/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn employer's actual or attempted control of a union through assistance, ranging from favoritism to a full-fledged company union, is deleterious to the collective bargaining rights of employees; however, those actions are distinct from interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain violations. [...] A union alleging that an employer is interfering with, discriminating against, or refusing to bargain with the union should file complaints based upon those allegations.
-
811.
City of Seattle, Decision 10335 (PECB, 2009) - 03/23/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn employer's actual or attempted control of a union through assistance, ranging from favoritism to a full‑fledged company union, is deleterious to the collective bargaining rights of employees; however, those actions are distinct from interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain violations. [...] A union alleging that an employer is interfering with, discriminating against, or refusing to bargain with the union should file complaints based upon those allegations.
-
812.
Port of Seattle (Teamsters Local 174), Decision 5710 (PECB, 1996) - 10/31/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint alleges that Maytum’s exclusive bargaining representative, Teamsters Union, Local 174 (union), has interfered with his rights as an employee, and discriminated against Maytum for filing charges.[1] [...] [3] The Commission polices its certifications, and such discrimination would place in question the union’s right to enjoy the benefits of status as an exclusive bargaining representative under the statute.
-
813.
City of Seattle, Decision 5391 (PECB, 1996) - 03/18/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union was notified that the facts alleged were insufficient to form a conclusion that the limitation on union campaigning "during work hours" discriminated in comparison to other activities which are permitted during work hours. [...] It was noted that the proper inquiry is on what other activities the employer has permitted at the workplace, and that no factual basis was furnished to support a contention of discrimination.
-
814.
City of Pasco (OPEIU Local 11), Decision 2327 (PECB, 1985) - 12/09/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeBy way of contrast, Elma School District (Elma Teachers Organization), Decision 1349 (PECB, 1982), involved allegations of discrimination against a grievant because of her previous support of another labor organization. [...] In the absence of any allegation that the complainant has been discriminated against on any unlawful basis, this case appears to fall within the class governed by the Mukilteo case.
-
815.
Riverview School District (Public School Employees of Washington), Decision 13214 (PECB, 2020) - 07/14/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn 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.
-
816.
King County (King County Security Guild), Decision 12907-A (PECB, 2018) - 11/27/2018
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn this case, it assigned a representative to represent Lee. The union argued that the complainant sought an inference that because the union successfully represented a female employee and the complainant is male, the union was motivated by invidious discrimination when it did not pursue the grievance. [...] The union represented Lee. Lee did not establish any facts that showed that the union discriminated against him based on his gender.
-
817.
Okanogan County, Decision 9980 (PECB, 2008) - 02/13/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union’s allegation that the employer interrogated employees about the authorship of a document may be relevant to the employer interference and discrimination causes of action which are included in the original preliminary ruling but it does not state a cause of action for an independent interference violation. [...] Employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) by denial of Tracy Harrison’s and Kim Scott’s right to union representation (Weingarten right) in connection with an investigatory interview on May 31, 2007 and June 14, 2007, respectively; employer interference and discrimination in violation of
-
818.
City of Grandview, Decision 7519 (PECB, 2001) - 09/27/2001
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe second deficiency notice stated that while allegations concerning racial discrimination are generally within the jurisdiction of the Commission, the amended complaint failed to allege any specific facts related to this subject matter. [...] The “supplement to statements of fact” document does not include information concerning “times, dates, places and participants in occurrences” detailing the allegations of racial discrimination.
-
819.
Kitsap Fire District 7, Decision 3610 (PECB, 1990) - 10/26/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegation of discrimination against McPherson was dismissed, on a conclusion that the employer would have denied McPherson promotion in any case, based on his admission that he was a recovering alcoholic still undergoing treatment. [...] ... (3) ... discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] As discrimination for pursuit of collective bargaining rights is prohibited by RCW 41.56.040, these cases hold that discrimination against an individual for testifying at a Commission proceeding is a derivative interference violation pursuant to RCW 41.56.140(1).
-
820.
City of Seattle, Decision 6357 (PECB, 1998) - 07/16/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Executive Director of the Commission issued a preliminary ruling on April 10, 1997, in which the complaint was found to state a cause of action for both interference and discrimination under RCW 41.56.140. [...] In a preliminary ruling letter issued on October 21, 1998, the Executive Director noted that the amended complaint did not raise a new cause of action, but had narrowed the scope of the proceeding by dropping the allegations concerning Crow’s transfer and thereby eliminating the “discrimination allegation”. [...] 5. The Seattle Police Officers’ Guild has failed to sustain its burden of proof to establish that Crow was discriminated against for his assertion of rights under Chapter 41.56 RCW, so that his transfer was not an unfair labor practice under RCW 41.56.140(1).
-
821.
King County (King County Security Guild), Decision 13824 (PECB, 2024) - 04/24/2024
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.
-
822.
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Decision 13659 (PSRA, 2023) - 05/03/2023
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. Assuming all of the facts alleged to be true and provable, the discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice allegation of the complaint states a cause of action, summarized as follows: [...] Employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(d) [and if so derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)] within six months of the date the complaint was filed, by retaliating against Anjelita Longoria Fornara for filing an unfair labor practice complaint.
-
823.
Centerville School District (Centerville Classified Public Employees Association), Decision 13030 (PECB, 2019) - 07/08/2019
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.
-
824.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 604 (2011) - 05/12/2011
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees Commissiondiscrimination in regard to: hiring, tenure, or any term or condition of employment; discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee after the employee has filed charges or given testimony concerning subjects covered by chapter 47.64 RCW; and refusing to bargain collectively with representatives of employees.
-
825.
City of Kirkland, Decision 6377-A (PECB, 1998) - 10/28/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeSweeney filed an amended complaint on June 1, 1998.Together, the complaints assert that the employer interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2), and discriminated against Sweeney in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1). [...] Sweeney did not, however, provide detailed facts concerning his own union activity or suggest any reason he should be singled out for discrimination on the basis of union activity, as required by WAC 391-45-050.