Seattle School District, Decision 13705 (PECB, 2023)
STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Employer. |
|
NEAL W. FIFI SR., Complainant, vs. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 302, Respondent. |
CASE 136750-U-23 DECISION 13705 - PECB ORDER OF DISMISSAL |
Neal W. Fifi Sr., the complainant.
Jacob H. Black, In-House Counsel, for the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302.
On June 14, 2023, Neal W. Fifi Sr. (complainant) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302 (union). The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice issued on July 10, 2023, notified the complainant that a cause of action could not be found at that time. The complainant was given a period of 21 days in which to file and serve an amended complaint or face dismissal of the case.
No further information has been filed by the complainant. The Unfair Labor Practice Administrator dismisses the complaint for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUE
The complaint did not allege any violations.
The complaint is dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
Background
Neal W. Fifi Sr. (complainant) is allegedly a Custodian at Seattle School District (employer) and is represented by the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302 (union). On June 14, 2023, the complainant filed an unfair labor practice complaint form and approximately 31 pages of email strings. The complainant did not include a statement of facts. The deficiency notice was issued on July 10, 2023, and provided notice that the filing did not state a cause of action at that time. The complainant was provided an opportunity to file an amended complaint. The complainant did not file an amended complaint.
ANALYSIS
Complaint Must Contain Statement of Facts
Applicable Legal Standard
Complaints must contain a statement of facts with numbered paragraphs. The statement of facts should include the times, dates, places, and participants in occurrences. For additional details see WAC 391-45-050.
There is a six-month statute of limitations for unfair labor practice complaints. “[A] complaint shall not be processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six months before the filing of the complaint with the commission.” RCW 41.56.160(1). The six-month statute of limitations begins to run when the complainant knows or should know of the violation. City of Bellevue, Decision 9343-A (PECB, 2007) (citing City of Bremerton, Decision 7739-A (PECB, 2003)). The start of the six-month period, also called the triggering event, occurs when a potential complainant has “actual or constructive notice of” the complained-of action. Emergency Dispatch Center, Decision 3255-B (PECB, 1990).
Application of Standard
In this case the complainant only submitted the ULP complaint form and approximately 31 pages of emails messages. The complaint filing did not include a statement of facts identifying the events that occurred or alleging a violation occurred. Because the complaint filing lacks a statement of facts, it is not possible to determine whether the complaint was timely filed or whether a violation has been alleged. Thus, the complaint must be dismissed.
Order
The complaint charging unfair labor practices in the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED for failure to state a cause of action.
ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 14th day of August, 2023.
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Emily K. Whitney, Unfair Labor Practice Administrator
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 or amended 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.