Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle v. Public Employment Relations Commission
118 Wash. 2d 621, 1992 Wash. LEXIS 67, 826 P.2d 158 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) has the authority to order interest arbitration as an unfair labor practice remedy in limited and extraordinary circumstances, specifically when an employer demonstrates a clear history of bad faith refusal to bargain and is likely to continue such refusal.
Facts:
- Five clerical employees worked for the City of Seattle's commuter pool and were represented by the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 17, AFL-CIO (Local 17).
- In 1982 or 1983, the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle (Metro), a public transit authority, began negotiating with the City of Seattle to transfer the City's commuter pool program, including the five Local 17 employees, to Metro.
- A state statute (RCW 35.58.265) mandated that any metropolitan corporation acquiring an existing transportation system must assume existing labor contracts and engage in collective bargaining with employee labor organizations.
- By April 1983, Metro's internal staff proposal acknowledged that the five commuter pool employees belonged to Local 17 and that Metro would have to bargain with the union, deeming it 'not a major problem.'
- In April 1984, the City of Seattle and Metro executed a transfer agreement explicitly stating that Metro would succeed to the City's obligations under its collective bargaining agreement with Local 17 regarding the transferred employees.
- The five commuter pool employees were transferred to Metro in early April 1984.
- For several years following the transfer, Metro consistently refused to recognize Local 17 as the appropriate bargaining unit for the transferred employees and refused to bargain with the union, later dispersing these employees throughout its other bargaining units.
Procedural Posture:
- In September 1984, Metro filed a unit clarification petition with PERC, asking PERC to find that the five transferred employees belonged to a different union (Local 587).
- The executive director of PERC ruled against Metro, dismissing the unit clarification petition and finding Local 17 to be the exclusive bargaining representative.
- Metro appealed the executive director's ruling to the full PERC Commission, which affirmed the decision.
- Metro then appealed the PERC Commission's decision to the King County Superior Court, which also affirmed PERC.
- Separately, Local 17 filed a complaint in the King County Superior Court seeking an order to compel Metro to bargain and for attorneys' fees due to Metro's bad faith.
- The King County Superior Court enjoined Metro from refusing to bargain with Local 17 and ordered Metro to pay Local 17's attorneys' fees.
- Metro appealed both superior court decisions (the unit clarification affirmance and the bargaining injunction/fee award) to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed both rulings.
- In February 1985, Local 17 filed an unfair labor practice complaint with PERC against Metro for its refusal to bargain.
- A PERC hearing examiner found Metro had asserted 'inherently frivolous defenses' and would likely continue to avoid bargaining, crafting an order that included restoring the status quo, making employees whole, awarding attorneys' fees, and conditionally ordering interest arbitration if good-faith bargaining failed.
- The full PERC Commission affirmed the hearing examiner's decision, including the extraordinary remedy of interest arbitration, while emphasizing its limited application to cases of 'frivolity and/or recalcitrance.'
- Metro appealed the PERC Commission's unfair labor practice decision (including the interest arbitration order) to the King County Superior Court, which affirmed.
- Metro appealed the Superior Court's affirmance to the Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the portion of the order requiring restoration of the status quo but reversed the portion directing interest arbitration in the event of a bargaining impasse.
- PERC and Local 17 petitioned the Supreme Court of Washington for review of the interest arbitration issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) have authority to order an employer to participate in interest arbitration if collective bargaining negotiations between the employer and its employees do not result in a collective bargaining agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Andersen, J.
Yes, PERC does have the authority, in limited and extraordinary circumstances, to order interest arbitration as part of an unfair labor practice remedy. The court found that PERC's statutory power to issue 'appropriate remedial orders' (RCW 41.56.160) should be liberally construed to effectuate the purpose of the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act (RCW 41.56), which is to provide public employees with the right to organize and bargain collectively. Agencies, particularly those with specialized expertise like PERC, have considerable latitude in crafting remedies necessary to make their orders effective and to prevent unfair labor practices from undermining the statutory intent. The court relied on its precedent in Green River Comm'ty College v. Higher Educ. Personnel Bd., which approved compulsory interest arbitration for higher education personnel, demonstrating that specific statutory authorization for interest arbitration is not always required for public employees. It distinguished federal private-sector labor law precedents, like H.K. Porter Co. v. NLRB, noting the 'radically different' nature of public and private sector bargaining, especially regarding the right to strike in the private sector. In this case, Metro's prolonged, bad-faith refusal to bargain, its legal maneuvering over seven years, and its actions to disperse the bargaining unit rendered traditional remedies ineffective. The court concluded that compelling interest arbitration served as an 'impetus to successfully negotiate an agreement' and was consistent with, rather than contrary to, collective bargaining principles in such egregious circumstances. Furthermore, the order did not constitute an unconstitutional delegation of Metro's authority because sufficient guidelines and procedural safeguards (negotiation, mediation, and arbitration using established statutory procedures) were in place.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the remedial powers of the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) in Washington's public sector labor relations. It establishes that PERC can utilize interest arbitration as an extraordinary measure to enforce collective bargaining rights when employers engage in persistent, bad-faith refusal to bargain and evade traditional remedies. The ruling underscores judicial deference to administrative agencies in crafting effective remedies and reinforces the principle that the right to collective bargaining for public employees must be meaningful, not merely theoretical, even in the absence of a right to strike. This provides a strong disincentive for employers to engage in dilatory tactics and ensures that unions have recourse against recalcitrant employers.
