1,430 result(s)
-
1,151.
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Decision 13465 (PSRA, 2022) - 01/13/2022
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeEmployer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c) [and if so derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)] outside the six month statute of limitations, by terminating Mary Flores for unidentified protected activity.
-
1,152.
Washington State Department of Children, Youth, and Families, Decision 13432 (PSRA, 2021) - 11/04/2021
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeEmployer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c) [and if so derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a)] outside the six month statute of limitations, by terminating Jo Ann Gibson for filing a grievance.
-
1,153.
City of Mabton, Decision 9992 (PECB, 2008) - 03/03/2008
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeEmployer discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1) [and if so, derivative “interference” in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by its lay-off of Frank Tijerina in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 RCW.
-
1,154.
Asotin County, Decision 9549 (PECB, 2007) - 01/12/2007
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights and discrimination in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by its failure to maintain the status quo during contract negotiations for a newly-certified bargaining unit through refusing to arbitrate a grievance concerning the termination of Donna
-
1,155.
King County (ATU Local 586), Decision 7108-A (PECB, 2000) - 11/14/2000
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn the basis of the evidence presented at the hearing, and the record as a whole, the Examiner concluded that Reeder had not met her burden of proof that the union has discriminated against her or interfered with her statutory rights in violation of Chapter 41. 56 RCW. The complaint was dismissed.
-
1,156.
City of Bellingham (WSCCCE), Decision 6985 (PECB, 2000) - 02/29/2000
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeB. Union discrimination, in violation of RCW 41.56.150(1), in reprisal for the exercise by McHugh of her right to select and change their exclusive bargaining representative; and
-
1,157.
Skagit County (General Teamsters Local 788), Decision 5981 (PECB, 1997) - 07/11/1997
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOn March 17, 1997, Steve Acero filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC. Boxes provided on the complaint form for “employee interference”, “employer domination of union”, “employer discrimination”, “employer refusal to bargain”, “union
-
1,158.
City of Seattle (IBEW Local 77), Decision 5707 (PECB, 1996) - 10/31/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice[3] The Commission polices its certifications, and such discrimination would place in question the union’s right to enjoy the benefits of status as an exclusive bargaining representative under the statute.
-
1,159.
City of Omak, Decision 5579 (PECB, 1996) - 06/25/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeParagraphs 11 through 15, 18 through 20 and 22 were found to state causes of action for interference and discrimination violations under RCW 41.56.140(1) only, based on allegations that the elimination of “K-9 [canine] patrol” and “take-car-home” policies were threats or reprisals related to the employee’s exercise of
-
1,160.
King County (SEIU Local 6), Decision 3245 (PECB, 1989) - 07/07/1989
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeYet, an individual employee whose collective bargaining rights are prejudiced as the indirect result of an agreement between an employer and union is entitled to a remedy, just as would be an employee whose rights were prejudiced by direct collusion or discrimination.
-
1,161.
Port of Seattle (ILWU Local 9), Decision 2549-C (PECB, 1986) - 12/05/1986
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practicefiled on January 29, 1986 (which allege, in essence, that the employer and the union followed through with implementation of a collusive agreement and thus unlawfully discriminated for or against certain applicants for employment), all of which have been found to state causes of action and have been assigned for hearing.
-
1,162.
Klickitat County, Decision 2280 (PECB, 1985) - 08/01/1985
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice2. Decision No. 2281 - PECB. Jack T. Cowan of the Commission staff is designated to act as Examiner to conduct further proceedings pursuant to Chapter 391-45 WAC concerning the allegations of interference with the internal affairs of Local 1533 and discrimination against its president (Case No. 5897-U-85-1098).
-
1,163.
Port of Bellingham, Decision 1570 (PORT, 1983) - 01/20/1983
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThe "interference/discrimination" allegations relate to an even more recent time period.
-
1,164.
METRO, Decision 1356 (PECB, 1982) - 01/25/1982
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeThere are no allegations that the Beatty and Wedvik discharges involved discrimination for the exercise of rights protected by RCW 41.56.
-
1,165.
West Valley School District, Decision 1179 (PECB, 1981) - 06/09/1981
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice"On or about October 31, 1979, the above-named employer discriminated against employee Ron Mook by discharging him becuase of his support for and activities on behalf of the West Valley Education Association and because he was attempting to organize the classified employees of the West Valley School District to join the
-
1,166.
City of Benton City, Decision 703 (PECB, 1979) - 08/21/1979
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge.
-
1,167.
Port of Bellingham, Decision 7613 (PECB, 2002) - 01/23/2002
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 [...] (3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice;
-
1,168.
City of Puyallup, Decision 6784 (PECB, 1999) - 08/11/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practicethe employer interfered with and discriminated against a bargaining unit employee when it resisted his requests for union representation at a meeting held on May 25, 1999, and then charged that employee with insubordination; that the employer engaged in further interference and discrimination when it removed the same
-
1,169.
City of Wenatchee, Decision 6517-A (PECB, 1999) - 04/22/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor Practice(3) To discriminate against a public employee who has filed an unfair labor practice charge; [...] Like the practice of the National Labor Relations Board in its administration of the similar provisions of the NLRA, the Commission routinely finds a “derivative” interference violation under RCW 41.56.140(1) whenever a domination, discrimination or refusal to bargain violation is found under RCW 41.56.140(2), (3) or (4).
-
1,170.
Lyle School District, Decision 2736 (PECB, 1987) - 07/24/1987
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeInterference and Discrimination Against Lambert The Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, Chapter 41.56 RCW, protects the right of public employees to file and pursue grievances. [...] In this case, the employer has asserted contractually based defenses and the contract contains provisions for final and binding arbitration of grievances, but the "unilateral change" allegations were mixed with "interference", "discrimination" and "circumvention" allegations which are not deferrable.
-
1,171.
Federal Way School District (International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 286), Decision 12853 (PECB, 2018) - 04/11/2018
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeId. The Commission asserts jurisdiction in duty of fair representation cases when an employee alleges its union aligned itself in interest against employees it represents based on invidious discrimination.
-
1,172.
Central Valley School District (Central Valley Education Association), Decision 12633 (EDUC, 2016) - 11/22/2016
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.
-
1,173.
City of Kirkland, Decision 6949 (PECB, 2000) - 01/31/2000
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeImportantly, the union did not mark the box on its amended complaint to allege either an “interference” or “discrimination” claim.
-
1,174.
City of Kennewick, Decision 6799 (PECB, 1999) - 08/23/1999
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeParagraph IV is predicated upon alleged employer surveillance of Simington and unspecified discrimination against Simington.
-
1,175.
Kitsap County, Decision 5773 (PECB, 1996) - 12/18/1996
DECISIONS - Unfair Labor PracticeOther than the circumstance of dates, there were no facts suggesting "discrimination" against employees for engaging in protected activities.[3]