1,430 result(s)
-
901.
State - Financial Management, Decision 8761 (PECB, 2004) - 10/22/2004
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union has couched its latter proposal in terms of “discrimination,” which is not helpful given the fact that only two generic types of discrimination are barred under collective bargaining statutes. [...] Those are discrimination based upon union activity or membership and discrimination under federal and state law for protected categories such as race, national origin, handicapping condition and those set out in RCW 49.60.020.
-
902.
King County, Decision 7104-A (PECB, 2001) - 04/06/2001
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Examiner dismissed allegations that the employer discriminated against Summers due to her exercise of collective bargaining rights, but found that the employer interfered with the exercise of those rights in violation of RCW 41. 56. 140(1). [...] 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 [...] to bargain); Seattle School District, Decision 5733-B (PECB, 1998)(interference and refusal to bargain); City of Puyallup, Decision 6784 (PECB, 1999)(interference); Cowlitz County, supra (PECB, 2000) (interference and discrimination); Port of Seattle, Decision 7000-A (PECB, 2000)(interference and refusal to bargain).
-
903.
City of Pasco, Decision 4197-B (PECB, 1999) - 02/16/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] [8] In Morton, an employer was found to have committed unfair labor practices by discriminating against two teacher sin reprisal for their union activity under the Educational Employment Relations Act, Chapter 41.59 RCW. The “res” of the discrimination actually involved denial of part-time jobs outside of the teacher
-
904.
City of Seattle (WSCCCE), Decision 3198 (PECB, 1989) - 04/24/1989
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt is unlawful for a public employer to engage in any form of reprisal or discrimination against its employees, because of their exercise of rights protected under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW.[10] The pursuit of a grievance involving break times has been found to be an activity [...] A discrimination violation occurs where it is demonstrated that an employer has deprived an employee of some ascertainable right, or has taken some adverse action against an employee, in reprisal for engaging in protected activity. [...] Essential to such a finding is a showing that the employer intended to discriminate against the employee.
-
905.
Kent School District, Decision 10298 (EDUC, 2009) - 02/05/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeFinally, the amended complaint fails to cure the defects to the allegation of employer interference with employee rights and discrimination, by employer official Merrilee Carey’s actions toward Amy Wiskerchen. [...] unit members regarding schedule changes; [3] employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1)(a) and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.59.140(1) (c), by employer official Merrilee Carey's actions toward Amy Wiskerchen, in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.59 RCW.
-
906.
Washington State University, Decision 9614-A (PSRA, 2007) - 12/26/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeFor example, if the facts of the complaint state a cause of action for a discrimination violation, then the preliminary ruling reads: [...] Employer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(3) [and if so, derivative “interference” in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by retaliatory actions against Jane Doe for filing an unfair labor practice charge.
-
907.
City of Port Townsend (Teamsters Local 589), Decision 6433 (PECB, 1998) - 09/25/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice9. The complaint in Case 13478-U-97-3289 alleges that the employer discriminated against Johnson in reprisal for her filing of the complaint in Case 13445-U-97-3282. [...] Case 13478-U-97-3289, filed on October 16, 1997, involves allegations of discrimination against Johnson in reprisal for her filing of an unfair labor practice complaint.
-
908.
King Fire District 39, Decision 2160-C (PECB, 1986) - 10/29/1986
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union urged that the grievance was arbitral and that the contractual prohibition against discrimination extended to applicants for employment "because any restriction on the number of applicants affects the quality of the workforce and, thereby, the safety of the employees". [...] The arbitrators held that there had been bargaining on the matter, specifically relying on bargaining history which demonstrated first inclusion and then deletion of the "or applicants" language in the contract provision concerning discrimination.
-
909.
Port of Edmonds (SEIU Local 120), Decision 1191-C (PECB, 1982) - 01/18/1982
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeConversely, had the employer compensated both employees equally for their time spent at the representation hearing, no discrimination could be found. [...] Employment Relations Commission while denying Dillon similar compensation for time spent attending the same representation hearing as a witness on behalf of the union, the Port of Edmonds discriminated against Dillon in regard to his exercise of rights conferred by RCW 41.56.040 and thereby violated RCW 41.56.140(1).
-
910.
Spokane School District (Spokane Education Association), Decision 13619 (EDUC, 2023) - 01/13/2023
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeArticle I, Section 4.B of the parties’ CBA states, “There shall be no discrimination, interference, restraint, coercion, or harassment, including sexual harassment, by the District or the Association of any District or Association employee, member of the Board, or its representatives.” Article IV, Section 3.C.5 states, “An [...] 1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] Article I, Section 4.B of the parties’ CBA states, “There shall be no discrimination, interference, restraint, coercion, or harassment, including sexual harassment, by the District or the Association of any District or Association employee, member of the Board, or its representatives.” Article IV, Section 3.C.5 states, “An
-
911.
Shoreline Community College (Community College District 7) (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 9094-A (PSRA, 2006) - 06/20/2006
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. [...] [7] Absent such allegations, the Executive Director dismissed that complaint alleging a union discriminated against a bargaining unit employee when it permitted only employees who have senior status the opportunity to vote on the proposed collective bargaining agreement.
-
912.
City of Seattle (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 587), Decision 12697 (PECB, 2017) - 05/30/2017
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe duty of fair representation originated with United Supreme Court decisions where the Court held 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.
-
913.
State - Corrections, Decision 7870-A (PSRA, 2003) - 07/03/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice4. Teamsters Local 117 admits that while it did not intend to cause [the employer] to discriminate against WPEA, the [employer’s] subsequent action in prohibiting WPEA from soliciting authorization cards at WCC was discriminatory in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) and (2). [...] Solicitation of Discrimination Allegation Against Teamsters 117 - Although the preliminary ruling framed a cause of action against Teamsters 117 for inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice in violation of RCW 41.56.150(2), the admissions and evidence in this case fall short of establishing the intent [...] [13] The reference to “discriminatory enforcement” in the preliminary ruling in this case is understood to be an alternative frame of reference to assisting one union to the detriment of another, rather than the type of discrimination against individual employees evaluated under the test established by the Supreme Court of
-
914.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1848-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
915.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1847-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
916.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1854-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
917.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1851-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
918.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1852-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
919.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1849-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
920.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1853-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
921.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1850-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
922.
Pierce County (Teamsters Local 461), Decision 1840-A (PECB, 1985) - 05/14/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainants argue that there has been discrimination in the enforcement of the union security clause. [...] The union urges that the complaints should fail, since the complainants did not prove intent or motive for discrimination by the union. [...] The union argued that discrimination cannot be found against it since there is no evidence of intent.
-
923.
King County (King County Corrections Guild), Decision 13178 (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
-
924.
Kitsap Fire District 7, Decision 2872 (PECB, 1988) - 02/17/1988
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn addition, RCW 41.08.075 Residency as a condition of employment-Discrimination because of lack of residency-Prohibited states, in relevant part: [...] or holding an office, place, position or employment under the provisions of this chapter or under any local charter or other regulations described in RCW 41.08.010 to reside within the limits of such municipal corporation as a condition of employment, or to discriminate in any manner against because of his residency ... [...] App. 30, 357 N.W.2d 791 (1984) using the "intermediate standard" but finding that many of the municipal interests relied upon in the Carofano case were, in reality, insufficient to form the basis for discrimination.
-
925.
Pullman School District, Decision 2632 (PECB, 1987) - 03/05/1987
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticePART I - INTERFERENCE AND DISCRIMINATION ALLEGATIONS FACTS Craig Fisher was hired as a custodian by the Pullman School District in October, 1984, and was assigned to the evening shift at the Lincoln Middle School. [...] The reasons advanced by Pullman School District for the discharge of Craig Fisher were pretexts designed to conceal a true motivation of discrimination against Fisher for pursuing a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement and engaging in other activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW. [...] A. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee for their pursuit of rights under a collective bargaining agreement or for engaging in any other activity protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW.