Docstoc

Public Relations Agreement Template

Document Sample
Public Relations Agreement Template Powered By Docstoc
					PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
        COMMISSION

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS & NEGOTIATIONS NETWORK
                  (ERNN)

              February 9, 2010


Cathleen Callahan, Executive Director
                     .                      1
      PERC’s Mission


 is to provide “uniform and
impartial…efficient and
expert” administration of state
collective bargaining laws.

                                  2
    Introduction/Review of PERC
   Structure
   Jurisdiction
   Services
   When to Call PERC




                                  3
    Introduction/Review of PERC
How Cases are Assigned
 Neutrality Safeguards
 Can Parties Request a Specific Mediator?
 When to Call for the Mediator?

How Cases are Processed
 Representation Cases
 Unfair Labor Practice Cases
 Mediation Cases
                                             4
    Introduction/Review of PERC
What’s New?
 – Compliance
 – Timeliness: Measuring our performance;
   docketing, preliminary rulings, hearings,
 – Emphasis on Settlement

Open Door – opportunities for improvement



                                               5
SIGNIFICANT RECENT COMMISSION
           DECISIONS
         Lessons Learned



                                6
City of Tukwila, Decision 9691-A (PECB,
September 15, 2008)
CBA allowed either party to renegotiate health benefits if costs
exceeded 10% from previous year

Union made timely request to bargain when costs exceeded
10%

Employer committed ULP when it refused to respond to
Union’s request to bargain




                                                              7
Snohomish County, Decision 9770-A (PECB,
October 31, 2008)
Employer may change its facility without bargaining

Impact of employer’s change affected employees’ terms and
conditions

Therefore, even where there is no obligation to bargain
decision, there is often a need to bargain the effects of the
decision



                                                          8
  Grays Harbor Community College, Decision
  9946-A (May 2009)
Union claimed dues for all employee’s work when civil
 service employee worked in unit represented by the
 union and taught classes.

Teaching was not bargaining unit work.

Examiner found that employee was only obligated to
 pay dues for that portion of her work performed in the
 bargaining unit.

Complaint Dismissed.

                                                      9
Community College District 17 - Spokane
Community College, Decision 9795-A (PSRA,
November 26, 2008)
Union received notice of layoffs on May 6.

Union failed to respond to the employer.

Union filed complaint alleging unilateral change on December
12.

Complaint Dismissed.


                                                         10
City of Seattle, Decision 9526-A (PECB.
January 14, 2009)
Public Employer is subject to NLRB’s Johnnie’s Poultry Co.
requirement:

   1. Employer must inform employee of purpose of
      questioning
   2. Must assure employee that no reprisal will take place,
      regardless of whether employee cooperates
   3. Must inform employee that participation is voluntary

Only in cases of preparation for litigation or arbitration –
different from Weingarten

King County District Court overturned Commission decision.
                                                         11
Ronald Wastewater District, Decision 9874-C
(PECB, January 23, 2009)
Job titles are not dispositive.

Commission looks at actual duties.

Preponderance of duties.

Accounting supervisor did not exercise independent judgment
to make meaningful changes in the employment environment.



                                                        12
Washington State – Attorney General,
Decision 9951-A (PSRA, February 27, 2009)
Union sought to organize two distinct divisions of Attorney
General’s office

People followed work, work followed people

Therefore, no clear vertical distinctions between employer’s
legal divisions

Union could not show a distinct community of interest existed


                                                           13
King County, Decision 9495-A, 9596-A, 9497-
A (PECB, September 10, 2008)
Surveillance cameras are a mandatory subject of bargaining

Use of camera changed from “observing” customers to
observing employees

Employer was obligated to bargain change in use of cameras

Employer also obligated to bargain installation of new
cameras that “observed” employees



                                                        14
Kitsap Transit, Decision 9667-A (PECB, December
19, 2008)
Decision to transfer bargaining unit work is a mandatory subject of
bargaining.

Employer’s decision to cease service was not a mandatory subject of
bargaining, although could have affects bargaining obligation.

Discontinued service was restored and moved to a second bargaining unit.

Employer was obligated to restore work to bargaining unit that historically
performed work.

Remedy: reinstatement of work, backpay for work lost due to unilateral
change.

                                                                       15
State – Office of the Governor, Decision
10353 (PECB, April 1, 2009)
In extreme circumstances, an employer may withdraw from a
tentative collective bargaining agreement

No violation when employer can establish drastic changes in
economic circumstances

However, employer must offer to return to the bargaining table
when it determines it cannot implement agreed-upon economics


This case has been appealed to Thurston County Superior
Court.
                                                            16
Office of the Governor, Decision 10313-A, (PSRA, April 21,
2009)
State Patrol bargaining unit is subject to interest arbitration

Interest Arbitration award provided for cost of living increase
to unit employees

Due to economic circumstances, employer disavowed interest
arbitration award

Commission affirmed Examiner’s decision that employer was
not entitled to do so under clear interest arbitration precedent

The employer has appealed this case to Thurston County
Superior Court.
                                                                   17
  City of Seattle, Decision 9945-A (PECB)

Did the employer interfere with protected rights
 when it subpoenaed, as part of its defense in a
 federal civil rights lawsuit, internal union
 documents and records?
Subpoena was not issued for grievance
 processing or contract administration purposes;
 it was outside the collective bargaining process
 and, therefore, not under the jurisdiction of the
 Commission.

                                                 18
  City of Seattle, Decision 9957-A and 9958-
  (PECB), October 6, 2009
Issue: Whether employer failed to bargain a change
 when it passed a new ordinance to provide Office of
 Professional Accountability Review Board with un-
 redacted copies of closed complaints.

Commission overturned Examiner: 1) no change in a
 mandatory subject 2) Board has no involvement in
 disciplinary process 3) CBA contained language
 prohibiting Board members from divulging
 information about cases.
                                                   19
 City of Snoqualmie, Decision 9892-A
 (PECB), September 15, 2009
Did the employer transfer Class B inspection work
 out of the IAFF bargaining unit without satisfying its
 bargaining obligation?
Employer intended transfer of work to be temporary
The fact that IAFF performed work for 3 ½ years
 defeats the argument that it was temporary
Commission found that the IAFF bargaining unit
 suffered no significant detriment when work was
 returned to the Teamster bargaining unit.
                                                     20
SIGNIFICANT RECENT EXECUTIVE
     DIRECTOR DECISIONS




                               21
Kitsap Transit, Decision 10234 (PECB, 2008)

Employer filed unit clarification petition seeking to exclude
40+ work drivers from its transit unit

Union filed a second petition seeking to merge transit and
Access units

Employer’s petition was dismissed as untimely – no change of
circumstances

Union’s petition was dismissed due to inappropriate transit
unit – worker drivers did not share a community of interest with
routed drivers

 Cannot merge inappropriate unit
                                                            22
West Valley School District, Decision 9949-A
(PECB, 2008)

   Union sought to represent the athletic paraprofessional

   Position was long represented by a second union

   Petition was dismissed - no change of circumstances

   Unions may not cherry pick positions from other existing
  bargaining units




                                                          23
City of Vancouver, Decision 10148 (PECB, 2008)

 Teamsters filed unit clarification petition to accrete sensitive
lands group into its grounds maintenance unit

 Council 2 filed a representation petition to represent the
same employees.

 Record evidence established overlapping jurisdiction, could
not establish whether sensitive lands group shared a
community of interest with either unit.

 Executive Director allowed time for Teamsters to obtain
showing of interest for intervention purposes.

 Absent intervention, employees voted to be represented by
Council 2.                                                24
 Central Washington University, Decision 10336
 (PECB, March 27, 2009)
 Union petitioned to represent 10 employees who
counsel students.

 55 other exempt employees also counsel students.

 Petition was dismissed.

 Petitioned-for unit would create ongoing jurisdictional
dispute.


                                                       25
ISSUES PENDNG BEFORE THE
       COMMISSION




                           26
Whether furloughs are a mandatory subject of
 bargaining.   Griffin School District, Decision
 10489 (PECB, 2009) and King County, Decision
 10547 (PECB, 2009).




                                               27
Whether an employer unilaterally changed its
payment practices for copies of requested documents
without providing an opportunity to bargain. The
Examiner ruled that the employer did not unilaterally
change its past practice. Kitsap County, Decision
9326-A (PECB, 2008).




                                                  28
Whether the employer interfered with and
discriminated against protected employee rights when
it prevented employees from using the employer’s e-
mail for a representation campaign. The Examiner
ruled that the employer did not commit an unfair labor
practice. Central Washington University, Decision
10118 (PSRA, 2008).




                                                   29
Whether a union committed an unfair labor practice
when it censured a bargaining unit employee for filing
a decertification petition. The Examiner ruled that the
union committed an unfair labor practice. King
County, (Washington State Nurses Association),
Decision 10172 (PECB, 2008)




                                                    30
Whether the employer committed an unfair labor
 practice when the union demanded to bargain a
 successor collective bargaining agreement and the
 employer (1) did not respond for over a month; (2)
 did not propose dates for approximately six weeks;
 and (3) would not commence bargaining until over
 four months after the union made its demand.
 State – Washington State Patrol, Decision 10314
 (PECB, 2009).


                                                  31
       PERC Training Opportunities
Interest Based Bargaining
Outreach
  – Labor Employment Relations Association (LERA)
     • Annual Conference, April 29 and 30, 2010
     Washington Trade and Convention Center, Seattle, WA
Labor-Management Committee Training
  – Customized for your Needs
  – Interest Based
Collective Bargaining 101
                                                           32
www.perc.wa.gov




                  33

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:401
posted:7/21/2011
language:English
pages:33
Description: Public Relations Agreement Template document sample