1,430 result(s)
-
826.
Grant Public Hospital District 1, Decision 6428 (PECB, 1998) - 09/24/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice• As to any suggestion of discrimination on the basis of sex, race, disability, national origin, and the like, Moncada was informed that she would need to pursue such claims through the Washington State Human Rights Commission, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or the courts. [...] 1. The allegation of the complaint charging unfair labor practices concerning the employer’s having interfered with and discriminated against Beatrice Moncada for her failure to appear at a grievance hearing is hereby found to state a cause of action for further proceedings under Chapter 391-45 WAC.
-
827.
Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board (Washington Public Employees Association), Decision 13191 (PSRA, 2020) - 04/28/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe duty of fair representation originated with United States Supreme Court decisions, 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 differentiation in rights afforded to probationary employees, in contrast to permanent employees, as specified in the collective bargaining agreement does not support a finding that the union was discriminating against a certain segment of the bargaining unit.
-
828.
City of Mountlake Terrace, Decision 11831-A (PECB, 2014) - 03/12/2014
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Mountlake Terrace Police Guild (union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint and an amended complaint alleging the employer interfered with employee rights, discriminated against bargaining unit employees, dominated the union, and refused to bargain. [...] A finding that an employee engaged in protected activity, or communicated an intent to do so, is the first element of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination and not part of the complainant’s burden of proof in an employer interference allegation. [...] The conflating of the two standards appears to arise from cases in which it was alleged that an employer discriminated against an employee and through the same set of facts interfered with employee rights.
-
829.
Lewis County, Decision 4691-A (PECB, 1994) - 09/23/1994
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeFor many years, this Commission applied a two-stage analysis in discrimination cases, by which the burden of proof was shifted.[4] The burden of proof was initially on the complainant, to establish a prima facie case that protected activity could have been a basis for the disputed employer action. [...] Under the "substantial factor" test, the first step in the processing of a discrimination claim is for the injured party to make out a prima facie case showing a retaliatory discharge. [...] 2. That he or she was discriminated against; and 3. That there was a causal connection between the exercise of the legal right and the discriminatory action.
-
830.
Grays Harbor County, Decision 3067 (PECB, 1988) - 12/21/1988
DECISIONS - ElectionThe correction officers came to believe that they were being discriminated against in terms of wages and benefits, even though the latest bargaining proposals advanced by the association demanded twice the amount of pay increase for the correction officers as was sought for the deputies. [...] In Okanogan County, the field deputies sought a separate bargaining unit because they felt they were a minority being discriminated against in collective bargaining negotiations by the combination of correction and dispatch employees. [...] Grievances have been processed on their behalf, without discrimination.
-
831.
Seattle School District, Decision 2524 (EDUC, 1986) - 09/16/1986
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeMuch of complainant's case deals with claims that the Seattle School District discriminated against her in violation of RCW 41.59.104(1) (c) and/or (d), because of her participation in a grievance. [...] However, it is not enough to simply allege that respondent's actions were intended to discriminate against Kim. At the very least, complainant must establish that some form of discrimination took place (i.e.,) that she was actually deprived of some right or benefit to which she was otherwise entitled).
-
832.
Clallam County, Decision 1405 (PECB, 1982) - 04/29/1982
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union contends that Mark Baker's discharge was directly and wholly motivated by Baker's assertion of rights under the collective bargaining agreement; that the employer threatened Baker with discrimination because of his assertion of rights under the collective bargaining agreement; and that Baker was discharged for [...] The county asserts that an employer may discriminate against employees who choose to solicit union assistance in processing grievances relating to individual employment matters, because actions related to individual employment matters were held to not be protected activities in City of Seattle, Decision 489 (PECB, 1978). [...] a. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of the exercise of protected activities under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
833.
Elma School District (Elma Education Association), Decision 1349 (EDUC, 1982) - 01/22/1982
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceto adequately assist her in a grievance proceeding before her employer; (2) failed to provide adequate representation for her during the grievance proceeding; (3) showed an attitude of hostility toward complainant; (4) and discriminated against her on the grounds she was not a member of the Elma Teachers Organization. [...] The complainant argues that the president of the ETO knew that Selde was not an ETO member and because of that sole reason discriminated against her when she requested a grievance be filed. [...] It further emphasizes that the facts of this case do not show any discrimination occurred nor that there was a lack of good faith when the ETO dealt with the complainant.
-
834.
Port of Edmonds (SEIU Local 120), Decision 1191 (PECB, 1981) - 07/07/1981
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeDiscrimination Against Dillon The complainant contends that the employer favored the decertification attempt by providing compensation to the decertification petitioner's representative for attending the decertification hearing held March 16, 1979, while failing to compensate a long-time union activist subpoenaed to testify [...] 7. The employer compensated William Thornton for work performed on the date of the hearing on the decertification petition but discriminated in favor of Thornton and the decertification petitioner and discriminated against Dillon by compensating Thornton for time spent representating the decertification petitioner at the
-
835.
South Kitsap School District, Decision 896 (EDUC, 1980) - 06/03/1980
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe above-named employer by its board members, superintendent, agents and representatives has discriminated against members of the bargaining unit by the following: [...] C. Since on or about May 10, 1978, the above-named employer, through its representatives, has harassed, coerced and discriminated against a member of the SKEA bargaining committee, Mark Stevens, because of his participation in the negotiations sessions with the employer. [...] C. The employer harassed, coerced and discriminated against a member of the SKEA bargaining committee.
-
836.
Pasco School District (International Union of Operating Engineers Local 380), Decision 13913 (PECB, 2024) - 07/18/2024
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.
-
837.
City of Seattle (PROTEC17), Decision 13533 (PECB, 2022) - 07/19/2022
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.
-
838.
Kitsap Transit, Decision 13077 (PECB, 2019) - 10/03/2019
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.
-
839.
King County (King County Corrections Guild), Decision 13064 (PECB, 2019) - 09/06/2019
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.
-
840.
Spokane School District, Decision 11591 (EDUC, 2012) - 12/04/2012
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer 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 termination of Nikki Easterling (Easterling) in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.59 RCW. [...] • Thomas “has a long history of anti-union animus,” including “related episodes of discrimination” against union members, suppressing union presence on campus, and driving off employees (“a large number of employees annually attempt to leave campus for fear of being treated in a similar manner as Ms. Easterling has been
-
841.
King County, Decision 10676 (PECB, 2010) - 02/16/2010
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.
-
842.
Northshore Utility District, Decision 9728-A (PECB, 2007) - 10/15/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeEmployer interference with employee rights and discrimination in reprisal for union activities in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) by breach of its good faith duty to bargain by: (1) making an opening proposal on an “accept or reject” basis with no negotiation; (2) [...] a. Employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in reprisal for union activities in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56.140(4) by breach of its good faith duty to bargain by: (5) by raising a new proposal to eliminate the union security provision in the contract
-
843.
City of Snohomish, Decision 9569 (PECB, 2007) - 01/24/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union only checked the box entitled “Employer Refusal to Bargain.” A derivative interference allegation was included in the preliminary ruling, as any violation of the discrimination provisions of RCW 41.56.140(1), domination or assistance of a union provisions of RCW 41.56.140(2), discrimination for filing an unfair
-
844.
City of Bonney Lake, Decision 1962 (PECB, 1984) - 06/04/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRCW 41.56.140(1) precludes a public employer from discharging or otherwise discriminating against an employee because of the exercise of lawful union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW. A "contrived" discharge would not be an unfair labor practice under the statute unless it is contrived to conceal a true motivation [...] There are no facts on which to conclude that the union has aligned itself in interest against the complainant on the basis of any activity of the complainant protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW or on the basis of any type of invidious discrimination.
-
845.
City of Seattle (IFPTE Local 17), Decision 802-B (PECB, 1980) - 11/07/1980
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn case number 2018-U-79-277, Blankenship alleges that the City discriminated against her in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (3) for filing a grievance with the City and a complaint of unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). [...] (3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge;
-
846.
City of Benton City, Decision 436 (PECB, 1978) - 06/07/1978
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice"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 designate representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining, or in the [...] a Discouraging membership in Retail Clerks Union, Local No. 1612, or any other labor organization, by discharging or refusing to reinstate any of its employees, or by reducing the hours of any of its employees, or in any other manner discriminating in regard to hire or tenure of employment, except to the extent permitted by
-
847.
Ben Franklin Transit (Teamsters Local 839), Decision 13409 (PECB, 2021) - 09/30/2021
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe employer asserts it had an affirmative obligation to protect its staff, including the employees serving on the union’s bargaining team, from Shjerven’s comments and actions because they could create liability for the employer under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW. [...] Furthermore, while the collective bargaining relationship may produce heated, volatile, or intemperate behavior, the sometimes-heated nature of collective bargaining does not justify harassment, discrimination, or bullying. [...] [12] The question of the impact or liability of Shjerven’s conduct under the Washington Law Against Discrimination, chapter 49.60 RCW, is not before this agency.
-
848.
Washington State Ferries (Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific), MEC Decision 49 (1990) - 02/08/1990
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionThat rule and/or the implementation of it discriminates against persons over 40, particularly those with large families. [...] Therefore MEC must hold that neither WSF or IBU discriminated against complainant on the basis of his age, as alleged. [...] 8. Charles N. Maringer is hereby granted the right to file, without prejudice, an additional and separate complaint, no later than ninety days after the date this decision and order is entered, is he believes he was unfairly discriminated against subsequent to August 25, 1989, subject to his allegations being found to be
-
849.
Seattle Housing Authority (Office and Professional Employees International Union Local 8), Decision 13776 (PECB, 2024) - 01/24/2024
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.
-
850.
Pacific County, Decision 13586 (PECB, 2022) - 10/27/2022
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.