1,430 result(s)
-
1,026.
City of Seattle, Decision 1988 (PECB, 1984) - 06/29/1984
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeBy way of contrast, Elma School District (Elma Teachers Organization), Decision No. 1349 (PECB, 1982) involved allegations of discrimination against a grievant because of her previous support of another labor organization.
-
1,027.
University of Washington (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 11086 (PSRA, 2011) - 06/07/2011
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaints 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) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)]; and union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW
-
1,028.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 582 (2010) - 06/22/2010
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionMEBA’s complaint charged WSF with engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of RCW 47.64.130(1) by interfering with, restraining or coercing employees in the exercise of rights; encouraging or discouraging membership in an employee organization by discrimination in regard to: hiring, tenure, any term or
-
1,029.
State - Labor and Industries, Decision 10491 (PSRA, 2009) - 07/31/2009
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint 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), and refusal to bargain in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(e), by its termination of John Petruzzelli (Petruzzelli).
-
1,030.
State - Social and Health Services (Washington Federation of State Employees), Decision 10079 (PSRA, 2008) - 05/23/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThree, the statement of facts does not contain sufficient factual allegations to support a cause of action for the union causing or attempting to cause the employer to discriminate against Champeaux in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(b).
-
1,031.
Bellevue College, Decision 10032 (CCOL, 2008) - 04/04/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeSecond, Hatsat claims union discrimination for filing charges in violation of RCW 28B.52.073(2)(c).
-
1,032.
State - Lottery, Decision 8106 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,033.
State - Lottery, Decision 8101 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,034.
State - Lottery, Decision 8103 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,035.
State - Lottery, Decision 8100 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,036.
State - Lottery, Decision 8105 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,037.
State - Lottery, Decision 8104 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,038.
State - Lottery, Decision 8102 (PSRA, 2003) - 06/04/2003
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practiceof employer misconduct occurring on or after August 2, 2000.The deficiency notice indicated that although the complaint did not specify a particular statutory violation, it appeared that the complaint was alleging a violation of employer discrimination for filing an unfair labor practice charge under RCW 41.56.140(3).
-
1,039.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 218 (1999) - 11/18/1999
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionIBU's complaint charged WSF with engaging in unfair labor practices within the meaning of RCW 47.64.130 by: (1) encouraging or discouraging membership in the union by discrimination in regard to hiring, tenure or any term or condition of employment; and (2) refusing to bargain collectively with representatives of employees.
-
1,040.
Port of Seattle (ILWU Local 9), Decision 6598 (PECB, 1999) - 02/08/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe deficiency notice further pointed out that, although the box on the complaint form to allege “union discrimination for filing charges” was marked, none of the facts alleged in the accompanying statement of facts supported a claim under RCW 41.46.150(3).
-
1,041.
Highline School District (Highline Education Association), Decision 5287 (EDUC, 1995) - 10/04/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegation regarding a potential "blacklisting" of the complainant was not set forth in a manner sufficient to conclude that either: (1) the union was aligned in interest against Moore; or, (2) the union engaged in discrimination based on Moore's union activity or lack thereof.
-
1,042.
City of Seattle (Carpenters Union Local 131), Decision 5025 (PECB, 1995) - 03/10/1995
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe Commission enforces the statutory prohibition against "discrimination" which either encourage or discourage union membership, and so has found unfair labor practice violations where an employer and/or union: (1) Enforce an unlawful union security clause; or (2) enforce an otherwise lawful union security obligation in an
-
1,043.
Snohomish County (WSCCCE), Decision 3690 (PECB, 1991) - 01/17/1991
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn the absence of any allegation that the union had engaged in any other discrimination or misconduct, it was concluded that the complaint did not state a cause of action for proceedings before the Commission.
-
1,044.
King County, Decision 3558 (PECB, 1990) - 08/14/1990
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complainant was notified that, while discrimination in retaliation for an employee's participation in protected activities would state a cause of action under Chapter 41.56 RCW, it appeared that his complaint was untimely under the provisions of RCW 41.56.160.
-
1,045.
Clark Public Transportation Benefit Area, Decision 1576 (PECB, 1983) - 01/28/1983
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint in this case lacks any allegation of unlawful discrimination and therefore fails to state a cause of action.
-
1,046.
State - Washington State Patrol, Decision 11863 (PSRA, 2013) - 09/04/2013
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 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 [...] In the context of determining whether activity is protected for purposes of analyzing a discrimination complaint, the Commission recently articulated a broad consideration of protected activity: “When determining whether activity is protected, we first look at whether, on its face, the activity was taken on behalf of the
-
1,047.
Edmonds Community College, Decision 10020 (CCOL, 2008) - 03/27/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe complaint alleged employer interference, discrimination, and refusal to bargain. [...] [2] The preliminary ruling set out two other issues: Did the employer discriminate or interfere with employee rights when it issued discipline warning letters to certain academic employees working at the Monroe Correctional Complex; and did the employer interfere with employee rights when the college president made specific
-
1,048.
City of Issaquah (Issaquah Police Services Association), Decision 9255 (PECB, 2006) - 03/06/2006
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeA union may induce an employer to commit any unfair labor practice: interference, assistance of union, discrimination, or refusal to bargain. [...] RIGHT 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 designate
-
1,049.
City of Tacoma, Decision 4539 (PECB, 1993) - 11/19/1993
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeIn Case 9771-U92-2221, Boardman accused the employer of retaliating against her for filing an earlier discrimination claim under in-house procedures and/or discharge without just cause. [...] In Case 9771-U92-2221, Boardman accused the employer of retaliating against her for filing an earlier discrimination claim under in-house procedures and/or discharge without just cause.
-
1,050.
Washington State Ferries, MEC Decision 26 (1987) - 03/27/1987
MARINE EMPLOYEES COMMISSION - Marine Employees CommissionWSF points out that there is no allegation or evidence of any discrimination on the basis of the grievant being a member of a protected class of people. [...] [2] At no time in the course of the hearing did the grievant allege that WSF discriminated against him in some manner that would suggest that a state or federal antidiscrimination law or any other law may have been violated in conjunction with his discharge.