1,430 result(s)
-
926.
Benton County (Teamsters Local 839), Decision 13788 (PECB, 2024) - 02/12/2024
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] The Commission may assert jurisdiction where an employee shows that a union’s breach of its duty of fair representation is “invidious discrimination,” including that based on gender and race.
-
927.
King County, Decision 9075-A (PECB, 2007) - 09/12/2007
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.
-
928.
Pasco School District (IUOE Local 280), Decision 5418 (PECB, 1996) - 01/25/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIt indicated its intent to assert jurisdiction in order to find either "inducing discrimination" violations (RCW 41.56.150(2), unions enforcing union security obligations without providing constitutionally-required safeguards) or "discrimination" violations (RCW 41.56.140(1), employers cooperating in the enforcement of
-
929.
City of Pasco, Decision 3804-A (PECB, 1992) - 02/13/1992
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeRCW 41.56.040 specifically prohibits a public employer from interfering with or discriminating against a public employee in the exercise of their rights under the Public Employees’ Collective Bargaining Act. The Commission and the Washington courts have long held that the processing of grievances pursuant to a collective [...] Furthermore, the Commission does not defer “interference” or “discrimination” charges to arbitrators.[4]
-
930.
Lyle School District, Decision 2736-A (PECB, 1988) - 05/11/1988
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeUnder that legal standard, the complainant in a "discrimination" unfair labor practice such as this one must first make a prima facie showing sufficient to support an inference that the employee's protected conduct was a motivating factor in the employer's decision to take the adverse action or actions.[2] [...] Like the Examiner, we fail to see among the "examples" cited by the union a sinister pattern of discrimination against union members engaged in protected activity.
-
931.
Clark Public Transportation Benefit Area (ATU Local 1055), Decision 2354-A (PECB, 1986) - 08/08/1986
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Human Rights Commission is, indeed, a proper forum for discrimination complainants. [...] The complaint in Case No. 5395-U-84-982 named C-Tran as the respondent, alleged that the employer had discriminated against him, and claimed violations of each of the subsections of RCW 41.56.140.
-
932.
City of Asotin, Decision 1978 (PECB, 1984) - 06/22/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeNo public employer, or other person, shall directly or indirectly, interfere with, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against any public employee or group of employees in the free exercise of their right to organize and designate representative of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining, or any other [...] a. Discharging or otherwise discriminating against any employee because of the exercise of the right to organize and designate representatives for the purpose of collective bargainng.
-
933.
Snohomish County, Decision 9291-A (PECB, 2007) - 08/22/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeA "discrimination" violation occurs under RCW 41.56.140(1) when an employer actually takes action against an employee in reprisal for union activity. [...] The first step in the processing of a "discrimination" claim is for the injured party to make out a prima facie case showing retaliation. [...] Issue 22: Officer Edwin Howard, Past Practice and Discrimination for Union Activities
-
934.
City of Renton (Washington State Council of County and City Employees), Decision 11047 (PECB, 2011) - 04/28/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn the present case, the union and employer could legally agree at the bargaining table to change the seniority calculations for part-time employees, and “the mere designation of ‘part-time’ status does not bring an employee into a classification protected from invidious discrimination.” Metro (Amalgamated Transit Union, [...] However, Fowler does not allege invidious or improper reasons for her layoff, but alleges discrimination based upon her part-time status; as noted, that is not a protected class.
-
935.
State - Natural Resources, Decision 8458-B (PSRA, 2005) - 07/08/2005
DECISIONS - ElectionBoth require employers and union to bargain in good faith, both prohibit employers and unions from discriminating against employees, both prohibit employers from interfering with employees, and both prohibit unions from inducing employers to commit unfair labor practices.[4] [...] [4] Although the language of RCW 41.80.80.110(2)(b) is substantially narrower than RCW 41.56.150(2), the classic scenario where enforcement of RCW 41.56.150(2) occurs when a union induces the employer to discriminate against an employee based upon union membership.
-
936.
City of Seattle, Decision 5852-C (PECB, 1998) - 06/12/1998
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainant seeks review of the dismissal of Paragraph C of the amended complaint, claiming that discrimination was ongoing and continuing, so the statute of limitations should not begin to run until the discrimination stopped and Apostolis was discharged.
-
937.
City of Tukwila, Decision 4968 (PECB, 1995) - 02/27/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeA more stringent test is imposed to establish that an employer discriminated against a complainant by taking action affecting the employee's terms and conditions of employment in retaliation for the employee having exercised a statutory right. [...] The "Discrimination" Claim - Olivas denied having any knowledge of the complainant's grievances prior to his December 8, 1993 directive.
-
938.
King County (SEIU Local 6), Decision 5018 (PECB, 1995) - 03/31/1995
DECISIONS - ElectionGiven, however, that previous contracts had consistently resulted in these being the highest-paid classifications among the covered employees, a charge of "reverse discrimination" has not been substantiated. [...] The duty of fair representation does not require that all employees benefit equally from contract negotiations.[9] Without a pattern of discrimination or exclusion over time, the recent wage negotiations do not warrant overruling the long history of bargaining in the department-wide unit. [...] Although they were not advantaged by the latest agreement between the employer and the Local 6, there is no evidence that Local 6 aligned itself in interest against the petitioned-for employees or discriminated against them on any unlawful basis.
-
939.
City of Seattle, Decision 3593 (PECB, 1990) - 10/10/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practicegiven for Kuhlmeyer's discipline had been pretextual, and that the discipline imposed by Eng was racially motivated.[4] Hamilton testified that it was his desire to discuss the matter further, to explain that his observations were his personal opinion, and to affirmatively speak up against any form of discrimination. [...] Hamilton testified that he is not well acquainted with Eng, and that he has not witnessed her engage in any form of discrimination or heard her express an opinion that he felt was derogatory or discriminatory. [...] Jerochim acknowledged that he chided and admonished Hamilton that his remarks regarding Eng were inappropriate and could be construed as sex harassment or racial discrimination.
-
940.
Pierce College (Community College District 11) (Pierce College Faculty Association), Decision 3456 (CCOL, 1990) - 04/09/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeDiscrimination by an employer for employees' exercise of their collective bargaining rights is prohibited, as follows: [...] RCW 28B.52.070 DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED. Boards of trustees of community college districts or any administrative officer thereof shall not discriminate against academic employees or applicants for such positions because of their membership or nonmembership in employee organizations or their exercise of other rights [...] 2. Pierce College did not interfere or discriminate under the provisions of RCW 28B.52.073(1)(a), (b) or (c), concerning its decision not to renew the contract of Tim Hoyt for the 1989-90 school year.
-
941.
Castle Rock School District (Castle Rock Education Association), Decision 4722 (EDUC, 1994) - 06/09/1994
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe union would characterize this controversy as involving the enforcement of a collective bargaining agreement, and not as a discrimination case subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission. [...] Nilson alleges that he has been discriminated against by both the union and the employer in the processing of his grievance related to his job within that "unit work" claim. [...] The standard, set forth by the United States Supreme Court in Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967), requires that the union deal with all employees without hostility, or discrimination, in a reasonable nonarbitrary manner and in good faith.
-
942.
Yakima County, Decision 13338 (PECB, 2021) - 04/22/2021
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice1. The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination. [...] First, there was insufficient evidence presented to prove that the union treated Martin with hostility or discrimination.[5] The evidence presented suggests that the union treated Martin the same as other bargaining unit members.
-
943.
King County (Teamsters Local 117), Decision 12000-A (PECB, 2014) - 07/24/2014
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeEmployees covered by Chapter 41.56 RCW have the right to organize and designate representatives of their own choosing for purposes of collective bargaining or exercise other rights under the chapter free from interference, restraint, coercion, or discrimination. [...] Objecting to the employer about the pension fund deduction is not activity protected under Chapter 41.56 RCW. The right to be free from interference, restraint, coercion, or discrimination does not extend to every workplace complaint or dispute.
-
944.
Bellevue College, Decision 11469-A (PSRA, 2013) - 10/10/2013
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] (c) 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;
-
945.
State - Social and Health Services, Decision 11033-A (PSRA, 2011) - 04/13/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn April 6, 2010, the Washington Federation of State Employees (union) filed unfair labor practice charges against the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (employer) claiming employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) by employer agents making [...] Unfair Labor Practice Manager David Gedrose issued a deficiency notice regarding the charge of discrimination. [...] On April 23, 2010 the union filed an amended complaint which deleted the discrimination charge and added a charge of employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(e) [and if so, derivative “interference” in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)], by its refusal to provide relevant information requested by the
-
946.
State - Social and Health Services, Decision 11033 (PSRA, 2011) - 04/06/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn April 6, 2010, the Washington Federation of State Employees (union) filed unfair labor practice charges against the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services (employer) claiming employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a) by employer agents making [...] Unfair Labor Practice Manager David Gedrose issued a deficiency notice regarding the charge of discrimination. [...] On April 23, 2010 the union filed an amended complaint which deleted the discrimination charge and added a charge of employer refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(e) [and if so, derivative “interference” in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)], by its refusal to provide relevant information requested by the
-
947.
King County (Washington State Nurses Association), Decision 10172 (PECB, 2008) - 08/29/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeBrown filed an amended complaint on January 1, 2008, withdrawing charges alleging union discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.150(3). [...] No public employer or other person, shall directly or indirectly, interfere with, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against any public employee or group of 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 free [...] filing an unfair labor practice charge with the Board before first exhausting internal union remedies.[2] The member had initially filed intra-union charges with his local alleging that the local president had wrongfully caused his employer to discriminate against him because he had engaged in certain protected activity.
-
948.
Washington State Ferries (Marine Engineers Beneficial Association), MEC Decision 114 (1993) - 11/09/1993
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionLangley and Austin "have acted in a manner of ill-will, prejudice and deliberate bad faith in dealing with this matter" and characterized their actions as "discrimination and suppression of contract proposals. [...] Furthermore, the obvious motive for these acts of discrimination is to prevent unlicensed engineer employees from promoting to the level of assistant engineer in a manner consistent with all other departments at Washington State Ferries." [...] Complainants further contend that MEBA engaged in an ULP "by encouraging WSF to discriminate against Oilers who hold engineer licenses by discouraging their promotion, and by refusing to consider their rights to promotion" as stated in MEBA shipping rules [Rule 21(e)(1) and (2)]," and by refusing to acknowledge that an
-
949.
Clark Public Utilities, Decision 1884 (PECB, 1984) - 03/16/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceright of individual employees to pursue their own grievance; employer interference, domination, discrimination and refusal to bargain unfair labor practices; union interference, solicitation of discrimination, discrimination and refusal to bargain unfair labor practices; the duty to bargain in good faith; a scope of
-
950.
State - Revenue (Washington Public Employees Association), Decision 8972-A (PSRA, 2007) - 01/05/2007
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 his/her assertion of a protected activity, and that there is a casual connection between the exercised right and the