Killian v. Seattle Pub. Schs.
403 P.3d 58
| Wash. | 2017Background
- Killian and Bailey were SPS grounds employees and members of IUOE Local 609-A; SPS investigated and terminated them for alleged misuse of district resources.
- IUOE, through nonlawyer representative Michael McBee, processed grievances under the CBA and entered a settlement with SPS that conditioned settling the union grievance on SPS offering releases to the employees.
- Petitioners had private counsel for their civil claims; IUOE’s representative told them to consult that counsel about the settlement offers.
- Petitioners sued SPS and IUOE in superior court alleging (against IUOE) breach of the duty of fair representation (DFR), negligent/unauthorized practice of law, and later a CPA claim.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for IUOE on statute-of-limitations grounds; the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether malpractice/unauthorized-practice/CPA claims arising from a union rep’s conduct in collective bargaining are separate from a duty of fair representation claim | Killian/Bailey: their claims (malpractice, unauthorized practice, CPA) are viable distinct claims against the union/agent | IUOE: those claims arise from union representation and therefore are subsumed by a DFR claim | Held: Claims arising out of a union representative’s actions in the collective bargaining/grievance process are subsumed in a DFR claim against the union; other state-law claims based on that conduct are not separately actionable outside DFR |
| Whether the 6‑month limitation in RCW 41.56.160(1) and RCW 41.80.120(1) applies to unfair labor practice/DFR claims filed in superior court | Killian/Bailey: the statutes’ plain text limits the 6‑month bar to complaints filed with PERC; superior‑court claims are governed by the two‑year catchall (RCW 4.16.130) | IUOE: the 6‑month limitation should apply to all PECBA/DFR claims regardless of forum to promote finality and avoid forum‑shopping | Held: The 6‑month limit applies only to complaints filed with PERC (statutory text); DFR/unfair labor practice claims filed in superior court are governed by the two‑year catchall statute of limitations (RCW 4.16.130) |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Seattle Police Officers’ Guild, 100 Wn.2d 361 (Wash. 1983) (establishes duty of fair representation under state law)
- City of Yakima v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, 117 Wn.2d 655 (Wash. 1991) (discusses concurrent PERC and superior court jurisdiction and priority‑of‑action rule)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (applies NLRB six‑month limitations rule to hybrid suits in federal court; cited on policy/finality grounds)
- Imperato v. Wenatchee Valley Coll., 160 Wn. App. 353 (Wash. Ct. App. 2011) (Court of Appeals decision holding six‑month period applies in superior court; majority here rejects that reasoning)
- Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1252 (9th Cir. 1985) (union attorneys’ malpractice claims arising from collective‑bargaining work are subsumed by DFR)