Highline School District (Highline Education Association), Decision 13974 (EDUC, 2024)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

highline school distRict, Employer.
lashannon jackson, Complainant, vs. highline education association, Respondent.	CASE 141194-U-24 DECISION 13974 - EDUC ORDER OF DISMISSAL

LaShannon Jackson, the complainant.

Jada Walker, Attorney at Law, Washington Education Association, for the Highline Education Association.

On August 28, 2024, LaShannon Jackson (complainant) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the Highline Education Association (union). The complaint was reviewed under WAC 391-45-110.[1] A deficiency notice issued on September 11, 2024, notified Jackson that a cause of action could not be found at that time. Jackson 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 Jackson.

ISSUE

The complaint alleges the following:

Union interference in violation of RCW 41.59.140(2)(a) within six months of the date the complaint was filed, by breaching the duty of fair representation owed to LaShannon Jackson for unidentified actions on an invidious discrimination, arbitrary, or bad faith basis.

The complaint is dismissed because it lacked facts necessary to constitute a violation within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Background

Jackson worked as a Teacher at the Highline School District. The union represented her for purposes of collective bargaining. The employer and union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that expired on August 31, 2024.

According to the complaint, in December 2023 Jackson requested assistance from the district regarding “concerns with LRC Push In support.” Jackson asserted that following this request, the district engaged in “an unfair and inaccurate Danielson Observation Scoring.” Jackson claimed that prior to a December 6, 2023, Formal Observation, the district did not communicate to her that she was an ineffective Teacher. On December 21, 2023, Jackson raised concerns about the scoring. On December 22, 2023, the employer allegedly disregarded the scores for not complying with the Danielson Observation Scoring standards. During the 2023-24 Christmas break, Jackson was placed on FMLA leave.

On February 1, 2024, Jackson submitted medical certification for her FMLA leave. That same day the district posted her job on the employer’s website. The posting indicated that the job’s duration was for the remainder of the 2023-24 school year.

On March 26, 2024, while on FMLA leave, Jackson received an email from her supervisor and union representative Elizabeth Beck requesting a meeting. Jackson allegedly replied to the email asking why Beck was joining the meeting, as it was Jackson’s understanding that when the employer requests a union representative to attend a meeting the meeting was usually disciplinary in nature. Beck allegedly stated the meeting was not disciplinary and was voluntary. Jackson claims she sent notice that she would not be attending because she was still on FMLA leave.

Jackson asserted that on March 24, 2024, she was granted a return notice that placed her on intermittent leave for the first month. The complaint did not clearly indicate the employer’s response to Jackson’s return notice, but it appears the employer declined to put Jackson back in her teaching position and the union allegedly supported this decision. Rather, the employer directed Jackson to attain substitute jobs that had not been chosen by other substitutes in the district. Jackson claimed these assignments were at high needs schools, serving students with behavioral needs, and required extensive travel. Jackson also claimed that these assignments exacerbated her medical conditions. Jackson claimed her requests for accommodation were ignored and she was not considered for openings at the school where she previously worked.

On April 12, 2024, the employer sent Jackson a nonrenewal letter. The letter did not explain the reasoning for the nonrenewal. The complaint asserted that Human Resources employee Christine McGee informed Jackson that she should have attended the meeting with her supervisor as the district was going to inform Jackson that they were not going to renew her teaching contract. On April 15, 2024, Jackson received a second nonrenewal letter. The second letter stated that Christin Larson would be recommending nonrenewal to the board but did not explain the reasons for nonrenewal. The complaint asserts that Beck was dishonest about the purpose of the March 26, 2024, meeting.

The union allegedly told Jackson that because she was a provisional employee, the district was free to nonrenew her at their discretion and therefore any grievances they filed would not be meritorious. Beck also informed Jackson that since she did not have an evaluation, certain collective bargaining provisions did not apply. Jackson asserted the union did not properly apply her factual situation when interpreting the collective bargaining agreement and disregarded state law governing evaluations.

Jackson claimed the union failed to represent her when it refused to file a discrimination complaint in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement and by allowing the employer to choose its own point of contact and investigator. Beck allegedly told Jackson that she could contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission about her allegations.

On June 6, 2024, Jackson sought clarity from the district concerning the documentation for her FMLA leave. Jackson claimed the documentation had inaccurate dates. Jackson also contended that the Education Advance evaluation summary contained incurred scores that were supposed to be dismissed. However, a notice from an Education Advanced Representative stated that scores and ratings are solely input into the system by Jackson’s administrator. Jackson contended the union supported the employer’s inaccurate records because the records are solely for district record keeping.

On June 27, 2024, a district Information Technology Representative allegedly notified Jackson that the district has blocked Jackson from accessing the district online employee record keeping system. The Information Technology Representative further noted that it takes one month for the employee to gain access to the system once blocked. The union was allegedly copied on Jackson’s emails but did not respond for one month.

ANALYSIS

Duty of Fair Representation

Applicable Legal Standard

It is an unfair labor practice for a union to interfere with, restrain, or coerce public employees in the exercise of their rights. RCW 41.56.150(1). The 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. Steele v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co., 323 U.S. 192 (1944). The duty of fair representation arises from the rights and privileges held by a union when it is certified or recognized as the exclusive bargaining representative under a collective bargaining statute. C-Tran (Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 757), Decision 7087-B (PECB, 2002) (citing City of Seattle (International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17), Decision 3199-B (PECB, 1991)).

The Commission is vested with authority to ensure that exclusive bargaining representatives safeguard employee rights. The Commission does not assert jurisdiction to remedy violations of collective bargaining agreements through the unfair labor practice provisions of the statute and does not assert jurisdiction over breach of duty of fair representation claims arising exclusively out of the processing of contractual grievances. Bremerton School District, Decision 5722-A (PECB, 1997). While the Commission does not assert jurisdiction over “breach of duty of fair representation” claims arising exclusively out of the processing of contractual grievances, the Commission does process other types of “breach of duty of fair representation” complaints against unions. City of Port Townsend (Teamsters Local 589), Decision 6433-B (PECB, 2000). A union breaches its duty of fair representation when its conduct is more than merely negligent; it must be arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith; or be based on considerations that are irrelevant, invidious, or unfair. City of Redmond (Redmond Employees Association), Decision 886 (PECB, 1980); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). The employee claiming a breach of the duty of fair representation has the burden of proof. City of Renton (Washington State Council of County and City Employees), Decision 1825 (PECB, 1984).

In Allen v. Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, 100 Wn.2d 361 (1983), the Washington State Supreme Court adopted three standards to measure whether a union has breached its duty of fair representation:

1.                  The union must treat all factions and segments of its membership without hostility or discrimination.

2.                  The broad discretion of the union in asserting the rights of its individual members must be exercised in complete good faith and honesty.

3.                  The union must avoid arbitrary conduct.

While an exclusive bargaining representative has the obligation to provide fair representation, the courts have recognized a wide range of flexibility in the standard to allow for union discretion in settling disputes. Allen, 100 Wn.2d at 375. There is no statutory requirement that a union must accomplish the goals of each bargaining unit member, and complete satisfaction of all represented employees is not expected. A union member’s dissatisfaction with the level and skill of representation does not form the basis for a cause of action, unless the member can prove the union violated rights guaranteed in statutes administered by the Commission. Dayton School District (Dayton Education Association), Decision 8042-A (EDUC, 2004).

The Commission’s jurisdiction is limited to the resolution of collective bargaining disputes between employers, employees, and unions. The agency does not have authority to resolve all disputes that might arise in public employment. Tacoma School District (Tacoma Education Association), Decision 5086-A (EDUC, 1995). The Washington State Human Rights Commission has jurisdiction over employment discrimination in the state of Washington. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is a federal agency that also has jurisdiction over discrimination. Civil rights cases can be pursued in the courts.

Application of Standard

Jackson’s complaint failed to allege facts demonstrating the union’s conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. The complaint generally alleged the union failed to represent her during the nonrenewal proceedings or sided with the employer. However, none of the facts as alleged demonstrate that the union actually aligned itself against Jackson’s interests on an improper or invidious basis, such as on the basis of union membership, race, sex, national origin, etc. Rather, the facts indicate that the union exercised its discretionary decision-making authority concerning the handling of the grievance, and this agency generally does not get involved in internal union affairs. Western Washington University (Washington Public Employees Association Local 365), Decision 8849-B (PSRA, 2006). Absent facts demonstrating the union’s conduct or Beck’s evaluation of Jackson’s claims was based upon or influenced by invidious reasons, this agency will not exercise jurisdiction over duty of fair representation claims such as the one alleged in the complaint.

The complaint also alleges the union failed to engage or misinterpreted the discrimination and evaluation provisions of the union’s collective bargaining agreement. The Commission does not assert jurisdiction to remedy violations of collective bargaining agreements through the unfair labor practice provisions of the statute and does not assert jurisdiction over breach of duty of fair representation claims arising exclusively out of the processing of contractual grievances. Bremerton School District, Decision 5722-A.

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  15th  day of October, 2024.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Dario de la Rosa, 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.