Spokane County, Decision 14202 (PECB, 2025)

STATE OF WASHINGTON

BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

Steve Horst, the petitioner.

Annie Holden, Attorney at Law, Reid, Ballew & Leahy L.L.P., for Teamsters Local 690.

            Colin Charbonneau, Director, for Spokane County.

Summary of Decision

Following the tally of ballots, decertification petitioner Steve Horst challenged the ballot cast by an employee who had ceased to be employed by Spokane County (county) before the deadline to return ballots. Horst argued that the ballot should be excluded from the tally. The appropriate time to challenge the eligibility of a voter was any time up to the employee eligibility verification at the tally before the ballots were opened. Horst’s challenge to the ballot is untimely; therefore, we dismiss the challenge, and the results of the election stand.

bACKGROUND

The Commission certified Teamsters Local 690 (Teamsters) as the exclusive bargaining representative of “all full-time and regular part-time attorneys of the Spokane Public Defenders Office.” Spokane County, Decision 9387-A (PECB, 2006). In 2018, the Teamsters were certified following an election between the Teamsters and a competing labor organization. Spokane County, Decision 12893 (PECB, 2018).

On April 25, 2025, Horst filed a petition to decertify Teamsters. After Horst filed the representation petition, Representation Case Administrator de la Rosa began the investigatory process that led to an election. See WAC 391-25-220. That process included identifying employees who were eligible to vote in the representation election. WAC 391‑25‑220(1)(f). The petitioner, the county, and the Teamsters stipulated to the list of employees eligible to vote in the election. The representation case administrator issued an investigation statement memorializing those stipulations. None of the parties objected to the stipulations, which thus were binding on the parties. WAC 391-25-220(3). On May 15, 2025, the agency issued an investigation statement and a notice of election by mail ballot.

The agency mailed ballots on May 27, 2025. Ballots were due to the Commission office by June 17, 2025. On June 18, 2025, the representation case administrator tallied the ballots.[1] Of the 58 eligible voters, 18 votes were cast for the Teamsters, 17 votes were cast for “No Representation,” 0 ballots were void, and 0 ballots were challenged.[2] Of the 58 eligible voters, 35 cast ballots, therefore 18 ballots were needed to determine representation. The election was conclusive in favor of the Teamsters.

Horst filed the election objection on June 24, 2025, properly serving all parties in the matter. Horst objected to the ballot cast by Jason Chenette. Horst alleged that Chenette’s last day of employment at the county was June 13, 2025. Horst argued that because Chenette was no longer employed at the time the ballots were counted, he was ineligible to vote.    

Analysis

            A cornerstone of the state’s collective bargaining laws is the right of employees to select their representatives for purposes of collective bargaining. RCW 41.56.010; Chimacum School District, Decision 12623-A (PECB, 2017). To provide employees a prompt resolution of bargaining unit determination, the Commission has adopted rules governing the conduct of elections. Chapter 391-25 WAC. Those rules include procedures for how and when challenges to voter eligibility may be raised. WAC 391-25-510. It has been the policy of the Commission to require that, where possible, challenges to the eligibility of voters and their ballots be made promptly before the tally. Grant County, Decision 4501 (PECB, 1993).

Commission rules provide that parties may designate observers to witness the tally of ballots in an election, and WAC 391-25-510 provides that observers may challenge, for good cause, the eligibility of any person seeking to cast a ballot. Challenged ballots are set aside and are not opened or counted until the status of the employee casting the ballot is resolved. Challenges must be made at the appropriate time and place, prior to the actual counting of ballots, so that challenged ballots do not become intermingled with other ballots. If a party fails to step forward and challenge a ballot, the Commission cannot go back and undo that which has been done. Where an election is conducted by mail ballot, any challenges must be made before or during the eligibility verification process which precedes the opening of ballots. Grant County, Decision 4501 at 8‑9.

Employees are eligible to vote in an election if they “continue to be employed within the bargaining unit . . . at the deadline for return of mail ballots . . .” WAC 391-25-430(1)(b). Horst argues that the ballot of the former employee should be excluded from the tally because Chenette was not employed by the county on the date the ballots were due. Accepting the assertions made in the objections as true for the limited purposes of this decision, Chenette would not have been an eligible voter as defined by WAC 391-25-430(1)(b) because Chenette was no longer employed by the county on June 17, 2025, the date the ballots were due.[3] Despite this, the Teamsters argues that we should reject Horst’s challenge to the ballot as untimely. We agree.

Cases where the Commission has allowed post-tally objections are distinguishable. In Pierce County, Decision 7018-C (PECB, 2002), the Commission allowed challenges to employee eligibility after ballots were counted. In Pierce County the employer and union added employees to the bargaining unit while the representation petition was pending before the agency. The Commission rejected the union’s argument that the decertification petitioner waived the right to object because the petitioner had not objected at any point during the proceeding until after the tally of ballots. The decertification petitioner’s failure to challenge the ballots at the time of the election was not fatal because agency staff should have questioned the increased size of the bargaining unit, questioned the showing of interest, and acted on the change to the scope of the bargaining unit during the pendency of the petition. Thus, it was other irregularities, not only challenges to voter eligibility, that necessitated vacating the election.

            In Grant County, the employer and union disagreed about whether a position was supervisory and should have been included in the bargaining unit. The agency conducted an election, which resulted in a tie. At the hearing to determine the supervisory issue, the employer raised, for the first time, that an eligible employee had resigned after the election and contended the employee’s ballot should not have been counted. The Commission rejected the employer’s assertions because neither party had sent an observer to the tally and neither party had challenged the ballot before the ballots were opened. The employer had provided the employee’s name as an eligible voter and stipulated to their eligibility. The employee’s resignation after the election was not good cause for allowing the employer to withdraw from its stipulation that the employee was eligible to vote when no challenge was made prior to the tally.

            In the case before us we are faced with the question of when a challenge to the eligibility of an employee who ceased to be employed by the county by the date ballots were due to the Commission must be lodged. The last time available for an observer to challenge employee eligibility and ballots is during the voter eligibility verification process before the ballots are opened at the tally. When challenges are made before the ballots are opened, the election officer can follow the procedures prescribed by WAC 391-25-510(1) and preserve the ballot. Once the return envelopes containing the ballots are opened and commingled, it is impossible to identify which ballot was cast by which employee and which ballot must be rejected.

Commission staff are not privy to the changes in the employment status of employees in the bargaining unit. Thus, it is incumbent upon the parties to monitor the employment rolls and notify the representation case administrator if employees cease employment during the election period. This ensures that agency staff count only the ballots of eligible voters.

The rules and procedures of the Commission favor an efficient and final resolution of representation petitions. By providing a framework for when and how parties must agree to which employees are eligible to vote, a procedure for conducting elections before resolving eligibility issues that would not affect the outcome of an election, and requiring parties to object to employee eligibility before ballots are opened, the Commission ensures that an election results in a prompt and final resolution of an election. Allowing challenges to employee eligibility after the ballots are opened and comingled for counting could result in the agency re-running elections, decreased administrative efficiency, and delays to employees’ bargaining rights. Allowing parties to reserve challenges to eligibility until after the results are known prevents meaningful recourse and deprives the bargaining unit of a timely result. Above all, requiring the challenges to occur before ballots are opened preserves the employee’s right to the secrecy of their vote.

Order

The election objections are DISMISSED.

ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this  16th  day of September, 2025.

PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

MARK LYON, Chairperson

ELIZABETH FORD, Commissioner

HENRY E. FARBER, Commissioner