1,430 result(s)
-
876.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13141 (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.
-
877.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13133 (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.
-
878.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13135 (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.
-
879.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13138 (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.
-
880.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13140 (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.
-
881.
Pierce County (Pierce County Corrections Guild), Decision 13132 (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.
-
882.
Port of Longview, Decision 12779 (PORT, 2017) - 10/03/2017
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.
-
883.
Grays Harbor County (WSCCCE), Decision 12695 (PECB, 2017) - 05/17/2017
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.
-
884.
Snohomish County (Teamsters Local 763), Decision 12614 (PECB, 2016) - 09/14/2016
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.
-
885.
City of Vancouver, Decision 5677 (PECB, 1996) - 09/18/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeWhether the chief’s claim of discrimination is correct, or whether the union has ever been discriminatory, is not the point. [...] The employer and the chief are ultimately responsible for hiring decisions under Chapter 49. 60 RCW and other laws prohibiting discrimination, even if local union representatives participate in the hiring process.
-
886.
Richland School District (PSE of Washington), Decision 2208 (PECB, 1985) - 04/30/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe record does not sustain the burden of proof necessary to substantiate a charge that the union and the employer acted in collusion to discriminate against the claimant because of her stated previous anti‑union activities. [...] 2. By negotiating a change in the position of secretary to the business services director from exempt to classified, the employer and the union did not discriminate against the claimant and did not violate RCW 41. 56. 140(1) or (4).
-
887.
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 13774-B (PSRA, 2024) - 05/15/2024
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeFornara alleged the WFSE breached its duty of fair representation by not advancing her grievances and that it had discriminated against her for filing unfair labor practice complaints. [...] We affirm the Examiner’s conclusion that Fornara has not established a prima facie case of discrimination in retaliation for filing unfair labor practice complaints.
-
888.
King County, Decision 13439 (PECB, 2021) - 11/23/2021
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.
-
889.
University of Washington, Decision 13294 (PSRA, 2021) - 01/25/2021
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.
-
890.
City of Seattle, Decision 12600 (PECB, 2016) - 07/27/2016
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.
-
891.
State - Social and Health Services, Decision 12569 (PSRA, 2016) - 04/22/2016
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.
-
892.
South Whidbey School District, Decision 10880-A (EDUC, 2011) - 01/12/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn employer who discriminates against an employee for filing a grievance commits an unfair labor practice. [...] The mere allegation that McCarthy misrepresented a material fact to Hood’s union does not by itself demonstrate that the employer violated RCW 41.59.150(1) by discriminating against Hood.
-
893.
South Whidbey School District, Decision 10939-A (EDUC, 2011) - 01/12/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeAn employer who discriminates against an employee for filing a grievance commits an unfair labor practice. [...] The mere allegation that McCarthy misrepresented a material fact to Hood’s union does not by itself demonstrate that the employer violated RCW 41.59.150(1) by discriminating against Hood.
-
894.
Seattle School District, Decision 9982 (PECB, 2008) - 02/19/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeShe alleged gender discrimination and retaliation by certain actions taken by union officials which she believed were in retaliation for her filing of an unfair labor practice complaint against the union. [...] 3. In February 2006, employee Liesl Zappler filed an internal complaint alleging gender discrimination and retaliation.
-
895.
King Fire District 16, Decision 9659-A (PECB, 2007) - 07/30/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn April 30, 2007, the Commission issued a preliminary ruling, finding a cause of action to exist for employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by cancelling Kemp’s previously assigned overtime in reprisal for union activities protected under Chapter 41.56 RCW. The [...] 4. Based on the complaint as amended, a preliminary ruling found a cause of action to exist for employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by cancelling Kemp’s previously assigned overtime in reprisal for union activities protected under Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
896.
State - Revenue (WPEA), Decision 9742 (PSRA, 2007) - 06/15/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint in Case 21021‑U‑07‑5364 concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a), discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c), domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(b), and other unspecified unfair labor practices. [...] Seven, based upon the foregoing, the complaint does not allege facts sufficient to conclude that a cause of action exists for employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1) (c).
-
897.
Port of Pasco, Decision 3307-A (PECB, 1990) - 12/31/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe use of that analytical framework in determining "discrimination" cases has been endorsed by the Washington courts. [...] The timing of the disputed action also supports an inference of discrimination.
-
898.
Asotin Housing Authority, Decision 2471-A (PECB, 1987) - 04/20/1987
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThere was no direct testimony showing that the employer's executive director was aware of the unionization effort, but the Examiner entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and order finding a "discrimination" violation. [...] The gravamen of the instant unfair labor practice charges is that the employer discriminated against the employees by discharging them for attempting to exercise their right to organize.
-
899.
City of Kennewick, Decision 482-A (PECB, 1979) - 10/05/1979
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] While the contracting out was not a malicious design by the city, and not intended to discriminate against the union, the net effect of the action prejudiced the status and integrity of the bargaining unit.
-
900.
King County (King County Corrections Guild), Decision 12943-A (PECB, 2020) - 03/31/2020
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe duty of fair representation includes an obligation to “serve the interests of all members without hostility or discrimination toward any, to exercise its discretion with complete good faith and honesty, and to avoid arbitrary conduct.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 (1967) (citing Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U.S. 335, 342 [...] First, it must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] Citing Retana v. Apartment, Motel, Hotel & Elevator Operators Union (Retana), 453 F.2d 1018 (9th Cir. 1972), the complainants argue that internal union decisions “made with hostility, discrimination, asserting one faction of the union in opposition to another faction, arbitrarily, and/or in bad faith, constitute a