State – Adult Family Home Provider, Decision 11082 (PECB, 2011)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
|
washinton State residential care council,
Complainant,
vs.
state – adult family home provider,
Respondent.
|
CASE 23954-U-11-6125
DECISION 11082 - PECB
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
|
On May 2, 2011, the Washington State Residential Care Council (union) filed a complaint charging unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the State of Washington – Adult Family Home Provider (employer) as respondent. The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,[1] and a deficiency notice issued on May 6, 2011, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that a cause of action existed at that time. The union was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.
The union has not filed any further information. The Unfair Labor Practice Manager dismisses the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
DISCUSSION
The allegations of the complaint concern employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1), by threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit made to bargaining unit members concerning union affiliation; and employer domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW 41.56.140(2) [and if so, derivative interference in violation of RCW 41.56.140(1)], by showing a preference for another union to replace the incumbent exclusive bargaining representative of its employees.
The deficiency notice pointed out the defects to the complaint.
WAC 391-45-050(2) (rule) requires complaints to contain “Clear and concise statements of the facts constituting the alleged unfair labor practices, including times, dates, places, and participants in occurrences.” Paragraph 4 of the complaint provides sufficient information to state a cause of action for domination or assistance of a union for the events of March 14, 2011; however, Paragraphs 5, 6, and 7 do not. Paragraph 5 does not identify the specific date in March 2011 of the alleged unfair labor practice, and Paragraphs 6 and 7 do not provide any of the information required by the rule.
In addition, Paragraph 7 alleges independent interference by employer threats of reprisal or force or promises of benefit made to bargaining unit members, but does not provide sufficient information under the rule to state a cause of action.
As noted above, Paragraph 4 of the complaint could state a cause of action; however, the complaint is unsigned and undated, and does not conform to WAC 391-45-050(4). The complaint will not be processed absent the complainant’s signature and the date of the signature.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is
ORDERED
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in Case 23954-U-11-6125 is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 2nd day of June, 2011.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager
This order will be the final order of the
agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.
[1] At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in the complaint are assumed to be true and provable. The question at hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaint states a claim for relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings before the Public Employment Relations Commission.