1,430 result(s)
-
851.
City of Spokane (Washington State Council of County and City Employees), Decision 13088 (PECB, 2019) - 10/18/2019
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.
-
852.
Skagit Valley College (Washington Public Employees Association), Decision 12752 (PSRA, 2017) - 07/20/2017
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice• A union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] A finding of discrimination requires a showing that an individual was deprived of a right based on their assertion of a protected activity, and that there is a causal connection between the exercised right and the discriminatory action.
-
853.
Skamania County (OPEIU Local 11), Decision 12351 (PECB, 2015) - 06/05/2015
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.
-
854.
South Whidbey School District, Decision 11134-A (EDUC, 2011) - 10/11/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRCW 41.59.140(1)(c) makes it an unfair labor practice 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, and RCW 41.59.140(1)(e) makes it an unfair labor to refuse to bargain collectively with the [...] Although individual employees lack standing to bring “refusal to bargain” allegations, employees do have standing to raise interference or discrimination violations, as those violations can either apply to an individual or the group collectively.
-
855.
King Fire District 11 (IAFF Local 1810), Decision 10927 (PECB, 2010) - 12/07/2010
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1); employer discrimination (and if so, derivative interference) in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1); employer domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2) [and if so, derivative [...] Ansel alleges that in December 2007 he attempted to have the union support a volunteer fire fighter whom he alleges was being discriminated and retaliated against.
-
856.
City of Seattle, Decision 9945-A (PECB, 2009) - 10/06/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeChapter 41.56 RCW prohibits employer interference with, or discrimination against, the exercise of collective bargaining rights. [...] 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
-
857.
City of Lynnwood (Washington State Council of County and City Employees), Decision 9120 (PECB, 2005) - 09/28/2005
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeBond claims that the union discriminated against non-members by only sending the memo to union members. [...] [I]f the dispute stems from a contract violation, the Commission would exercise jurisdiction only if the complaint (as amended) contains factual allegations that the union aligned itself against Stoermer on the basis of union membership (or lack thereof), or that the union discriminated against her on some invidious basis
-
858.
Cowlitz County, Decision 6832-A (PECB, 2000) - 04/12/2000
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices on November 6, 1998, alleging that the employer discriminated against employees and interfered with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), and refused to bargain in violation of RCW 41.56-.140(4).The union amended its complaint on November 18, 1998, and [...] RCW 41.56.140(1) prohibits employers from interfering with or discriminating against public employees in the exercise of the rights secured for them by the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act: [...] RCW 41.56.040RIGHT 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
-
859.
City of Seattle, Decision 5852-B (PECB, 1997) - 11/20/1997
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAt the close of that day, Apostolis made an offer of proof in support of his contention that his allegations regarding “discrimination” permitted him to introduce evidence which, he asserted, would show a union animus on the part of the employer. [...] It is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against an employee for exercising protected rights. [...] Educational Service District 114, Decision 4361-A (PECB, 1994), discusses the legal standard used in discrimination cases, including the need to show union animus.
-
860.
State - Washington State Patrol, Decision 4757-A (PECB, 1995) - 02/27/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeVarious aspects of your proposed contract violate federal anti-discrimination law, and specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act. We are not prepared to allow the State Patrol to enter into an illegal contract with a trooper, at least not with the sanction of the State Troopers Association. [...] Such a request on the part of the State Patrol is a per se violation of federal anti-discrimination law and the Association will not sanction that covenant. [...] That also violates the requirement of the ADA not to engage in general acts of discrimination against people with disabilities.
-
861.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 113 (1994) - 06/09/1994
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees Commission26. Washington State Department of Transportation Directive D 04-01 (December 30, 1992) states that it is a policy of the DOT to provide “all its employees with a working environment free of all forms of discrimination (including harassment) because of race, creed, color, national origin, religion, age, sex, sexual [...] 6. Has the company applied its rules, orders and penalties evenhandedly and without discrimination to all employees?
-
862.
Shelton School District, Decision 579-B (EDUC, 1984) - 07/05/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeNumerous pleadings and motions were received as late as April, 1978, which would be useless to detail, except for those discussed below under the heading: “Discrimination Against Witnesses.” [...] It further granted the association's post-hearing motion for summary judgment pertaining to discrimination against witnesses at the hearing. [...] Discrimination Against Witnesses - Summary Judgment On December 2, 1976, the association moved to reopen the record to admit evidence that the pay of its witnesses had been docked for the days they attended the hearings on these matters.
-
863.
Washington State Ferries, Decision 13542 (MRNE, 2022) - 07/28/2022
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.
-
864.
North Thurston School District (North Thurston Education Association), Decision 13065 (EDUC, 2019) - 09/13/2019
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.
-
865.
Shoreline Community College, Decision 12609 (CCOL, 2016) - 08/04/2016
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.
-
866.
Green River College, Decision 4008 (CCOL, 1992) - 03/05/1992
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn each of them, an employee had been the recipient of disciplinary action, and alleged that the discipline was actually the result of anti-union discrimination. [...] The allegations before the Examiner in this case involve “unilateral change”, not “discrimination”.
-
867.
City of Seattle, Decision 3079-A (PECB, 1989) - 09/29/1989
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe City of Seattle has established an "internal" process for its employees to obtain investigation of and remedy for affirmative action, sexual harassment and discrimination problems they encounter in the course of their employment. [...] units for which International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17, is the exclusive bargaining representative to have representation by union officials in the processing of matters under the employer's internal "EEO" processes concerning affirmative action, discrimination and sexual harassment.
-
868.
Ridgefield School District (Ridgefield Classified Association), Decision 13912 (PECB, 2024) - 07/17/2024
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practicea. Using its bargaining authority to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement that benefitted certain bargaining unit employees while at the same time making other proposals that discriminated against other similarly situated bargaining unit employees? [...] 1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] negotiations the union’s bargaining team members had, at any time, advocated for a distinction in the SEL-Connection Center Mentor classifications and corresponding rates of pay based off any personal animosity among members of that bargaining committee toward the complainants or to discriminate against particular members.
-
869.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13136 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.
-
870.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13137 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.
-
871.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13134 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.
-
872.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13139 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.
-
873.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13142 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.
-
874.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13143 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.
-
875.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13144 (PECB, 2020) - 01/10/2020
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.