Kitsap County Juvenile Detention Officers' Guild v. Kitsap County
48723-3
| Wash. Ct. App. | Jul 5, 2017Background
- PERC certified the Kitsap County Juvenile Detention Officers’ Guild as exclusive bargaining representative for detention officers; wage matters were handled by the County, nonwage matters by the Superior Court.
- Negotiations over a new CBA in 2012–2013 stalled on three main topics: elimination of contractual overtime (County proposal), a nondiscrimination clause, and a grievance procedure (County proposed court-based Step 2 decision by a judge; Guild wanted neutral binding arbitration).
- Repeated email and bargaining exchanges occurred; County negotiators consulted counsel and judges off-table, explained their rationale (transparency, public process) and at times asked to move to other agenda items when at impasse; one session ended when the County’s representative walked out after saying he was "done."
- The Guild filed an unfair labor practice complaint alleging the County failed to bargain in good faith by sending negotiators without authority and by frustrating bargaining.
- A PERC hearing examiner found for the Guild (breach of the duty to bargain). PERC reviewed the record, vacated the examiner’s order, and concluded the County did not commit an unfair labor practice. The Superior Court reversed PERC; this appeal follows.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Guild) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether County refused to bargain in good faith by sending negotiators without authority | County negotiators lacked authority (e.g., unaware of County resolution on overtime; needed repeated off-table consultations) and thus frustrated bargaining | County negotiators had authority to tentatively agree, consulted appropriately with counsel/judges, and later adjusted proposals (e.g., reinstated overtime) — consultation with absent constituents is permissible | PERC and appellate court held County did not breach duty to bargain; no unfair labor practice |
| Whether County failed to provide adequate rationale/information on grievance procedure (binding arbitration vs. court) | County failed to explain "binding" and refused to provide rationale, obstructing meaningful bargaining | County provided legal explanation and judges’ reasons (transparency, precedent, public forum), and engaged in frank discussion; firm position alone is not bad faith | Held County adequately explained rationale; standing firm is not per se bad faith |
| Whether County unlawfully terminated/failed to meet at reasonable times | The County’s termination/ultimatum (walking out; refusing to continue grievance discussion) was unilateral and frustrated bargaining | County proposed moving to other agenda items after impasse, offered to reschedule, and termination was reasonable to avoid futile marathon bargaining | Held County did not act unreasonably in ending session and offered to continue later; no per se failure to meet |
| Whether PERC violated its own procedures or improperly substituted findings | Guild: PERC failed to defer to examiner, reviewed facts de novo, and improperly credited County without its appellate brief | County/PERC: PERC considered the hearing record and parties’ prior briefs, applied substantial-evidence review, and is entitled to substitute findings supported by the record | Held PERC followed its standard of review and procedures; superior court erred in reversing PERC |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Bellevue v. Int’l Ass’n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604, 119 Wn.2d 373 (1992) (employer must provide relevant requested information and explain rationale during bargaining)
- DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 117 Wn. App. 291 (2003) (appellate review of agency decisions under APA)
- City of Federal Way v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 93 Wn. App. 509 (1998) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
- Yakima Police Patrolmen’s Ass’n v. City of Yakima, 153 Wn. App. 541 (2009) (scope of substantial-evidence review and agency substitution of findings)
- City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 107 Wn. App. 694 (2001) (agency substitution of findings must not be arbitrary or capricious)
- Towle v. Dep’t of Fish & Wildlife, 94 Wn. App. 196 (1999) (arbitrary and capricious standard for agency action)
- City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp’t Relations Comm’n, 180 Wn. App. 333 (2014) (give agency great weight on statutory interpretation in public-employee collective-bargaining matters)