*1 by Campbell If was confused transfer. constructive have delivery, he could nonspecific a charging information information whether specify for the State moved actual delivery by committing with being charged he was any so, therefore do transfer. He did not constructive are the information specificity relating problems 320-21, Holt, State v. review. subject not ele- (1985) (so sets forth information long as 704 P.2d chal- information cannot be charged, the crime ments of a bill timely requested unless defendant lenged appeal particulars). and sentence affirmed. judgment Forrest, J., Grosse, A.C.J., concur. 27, 1990.] August 12864-1-II. Two. Division

[No. Community College District No. Shoreline Employment Security Appellant, Department, al, Respondents. et *2 General, and Edwin J. Attorney Eikenberry, Kenneth O. Assistant, McCullough, Jr., appellant. for General, M. Attorney Eikenberry, O. Kenneth Assistant, Jones, G. respondents. for Geoffrey District No. Shoreline Community College J. Petrich, Commissioner (the ruling College) appeals A. Pelto that Richard Department bene- to receive was eligible fits. We affirm. 50.04.030, defines the that RCW parties agree an must work of hours that individual

minimum number for unem- benefits, eligibility Pelto's qualify governs contends, however, College ployment compensation. that Pelto incorrectly concluded the Commissioner during the 1986 at least 680 hours worked for the requires. as year, benefit the statute *3 employs part- full- and Community College Shoreline keep not detailed College The does time instructors. require work, it its instructors nor does records of the hours they of the hours work. to maintain records its instructors of Teach- Community College Federation The Shoreline AFL-CIO, represents part-time full- and teachers ers, the 1982, In and the Federation College. College the at the formula, they agreed "hours allowed" an negotiated that a reported use when it the hours College the would worked to the part-time instructor formula, College Under the estimated Department. it 35 hours a week and instructor worked that a full-time The quarter included weeks. that an academic agreed that each five-credit agreed also College and the Federation teaching full-time load. percent of a course constituted 33 might spend teacher College particular concedes that The formula job his than the more, less, performing time allowed. consistently Shoreline the applied "hours allowed" formula after 1982.1 part

Pelto worked time as an English instructor at Shoreline 1986. the During first and quarters second year, 1986, the calendar January from taught June he English a 5-credit hour course. fourth During the quarter of from September December, taught Pelto English both English 102. The two courses totaled 10 credit hours. Fifteen credit hours constitutes a full-time teaching load. College

The terminated employment Pelto's December applied 1986. unemployment Pelto for bene- in April fits 1987. College applied the "hours allowed" reported formula and during that Pelto worked 513 hours 1986, 167 hours less than the minimum hours number of required to receive unemployment. Because the reported that Pelto during worked fewer than 680 hours 1986, the his Employment Security Department denied claim the denial appealed benefits. Pelto of benefits. At the hearing, administrative Pelto testified that he did keep any not records of the that he estimated, however, worked 1986. He that he was at school 6 day, Monday through hours a Friday, during quarter fall campus and was on day, Monday hours each through Friday, during the spring winter and quarters. Pelto calculated that he during worked 770 hours the 1986 year. benefits administrative judge adopted law "hours

allowed" formula of the College. formula, Applying ALJ determined that Pelto worked 513 hours He 1986. Department's affirmed the determination that not Pelto did qualify for unemployment because he did not work at least during 680 hours 1986. *4 reporting 1The formula used for is: = load) per 11 Wks. x_(% "35 x of full-time Hours Qtr. Hrs./Wk.

Allowed."

69 appealed Com- decision to the the administrative Pelto Department. The of the missioner of the administrative set aside the decision Commissioner testimony finding judge 29, 1988, that Pelto's June law fulfilling hours to he at least 770 "devoted established College." The Commis- to the contractual commitments his requirements of RCW met the that Pelto sioner concluded eligible bene- receive and was 50.04.030 County Superior affirmed the for Thurston The Court fits. decision. Commissioner's judicial governs review of

Former RCW 34.04.130 denying unemploy granting or an decision administrative Macey Department v. benefits. ment (1988). Empl. The 308, 312, P.2d Sec., 110 Wn.2d 752 372 aggrieved" "person a final administra a statute entitles judicial findings If the tive decision to review. "clearly agency in view of the administrative erroneous pur "arbitrary capricious," court, record" or this entire may 34.04.130, the adminis suant to former RCW reverse Empl. Macey Department Sec., v. trative decision. "arbitrary apply "clearly supra. or the erroneous" We directly capricious" to the record of the standard Macey, proceedings. 110 Wn.2d. at 311-12. administrative try Macey, on review. Wn.2d We will not facts de novo at 313. "clearly although finding is when, there is

A erroneous" support court, it, based on the evidence substantial record, the definite and is left with entire administrative Farm has been committed. firm that mistake conviction Transp. Supply Comm'n, Distribs., & Inc. v. State Utils. (1974); v. 446, 449, Wallace Wn.2d P.2d 1237 App. Department Empl. Sec., 755 P.2d 51 Wn. give reviewing to the must deference court expertise of the administrative tribunal. Wallace Empl. supra. Department Sec., of an admin- action capricious" "arbitrary agency if it is willful is istrative *5 70

and unreasoning, for, without in consideration and disre- of, gard facts and v. Department circumstances. Wallace Sec., Empl. 51 Wn. at App. 792.

The Commissioner found that Pelto worked 770 hours 1986. The during College did not this or challenge any other fails finding the Commissioner. Where a party properly to assign error to the of an findings administrative agency, under RAP 10.3(g) 10.4(c), and such findings will be treated as verities on appeal. Fuller v. Department Sec., Empl. 603, 606, App. (1988), 52 Wn. 762 P.2d 367 denied, (1989). review 113 Wn.2d 1005 The Commissioner's unchallenged finding, which is verity, a establishes that Pelto worked 770 hours in 1986. This find ing supports the Commissioner's conclusion that Pelto met the minimum requirement of and established a year" "benefit under RCW 50.04.030.

Despite the uncontroverted that finding Pelto worked 1986, 770 hours the College insists that the "hours allowed" formula controls the computation of hours of employment that establish a year" "benefit and entitlement because it is contained statutorily authorized collective bargaining agreement.

RCW 28B.52.020 and 28B.52.025 authorize the Col lege employees, and its instructors, including bargain collectively and to execute an agreement governs that hours, "wages, and other terms and conditions of employ 28B.52.020(8). ment". RCW The statute does not define the phrase "terms and conditions of employment", but lists as of "terms illustrative and employment" conditions of pro nonretention, cedures related to dismissal, tenure, denial of and reduction In Spokane force. Barnes, Educ. Ass'n v. 374, 366, 83 Wn.2d (1974), P.2d 1362 the court stated " subjects negotiation are not limited [w]hile those list, included any additional subjects must be and, related to those are listed . . . they must be of only an indi- has subject kind."2 A or issue which the same secu- job and their impact employees uncertain rect or of employment term condition qualify not as a rity does Educ. Spokane subject bargaining. not to collective is Barnes, International See also at Ass'n 83 Wn.2d 375. Empl. 1052 v. Public Local Union Fighters, Ass'n Fire Comm'n, 200-01, P.2d Relations termination, pro- and tenure Salary, probation, proce- cedures, time, discipline progressive release paid recognized decisions dures, equipment staffing *6 Fighters, See Fire employment". of "terms and conditions Comm'ty College Green River 204-06; 113 Wn.2d at cf. Bd., 427, Higher Educ. Personnel Dist. 10 v. 107 Wn.2d Ass'n Columbia Basin 437-38, (1986); P.2d 653 730 v. Board Trustees Columbia Basin Higher Educ. of (1976), adhered to 772, 779, College, 87 Wn.2d 557 P.2d 852 v. rehearing, Sinnott 36, (1977); 568 P.2d 796 College, 888, P.2d 1213 Skagit Vly. 878, 49 746 App. Wn. Big v. denied, Eyre (1988); (1987), review 110 Wn.2d 1010 College, 154, 155, P.2d Comm'ty Bend 672 App. 36 Wn. 1270 phrase construing of the federal courts

Decisions in the used as employment," and conditions "terms 158(d), 8(d), Act 29 U.S.C. Labor Relations National § § laws. labor authority construing when state persuasive are Educ. Higher v. College Dist. 10 Comm'ty Green River Court, Bd., Personnel Supreme 107 Wn.2d at 432. The NLRB, 497-501, L. Ed. 488, Ford Motor Co. 441 60 U.S. 1842, (1979), that "terms 420, S. 1849-51 found 2d 99 Ct. that employment" include issues and conditions of Spokane interpreted ROW 28A- Education Association former 2The court topics 28A.72.030), 1969, Sess., 223, (Laws identified which 1st Ex. ch. § .72.030 employee bar representatives by open negotiation of a school and for discussion adoption of school part process gaining agent as in the the school board of the and January 1, statute, repealed Legislature effective policies that the board. statute, however, appeared the ante repealed language also 1976. govern bar 28B.52.030, currently collective 28B.52.020 and cedent of RCW community colleges. among personnel gaining 72

"plainly germane the 'working environment'" or that "'vitally aspect affect'" some relationship between The court in Seattle First employer the employee. NLRB, Nat'l Bank v. (9th 30, 1971), 444 F.2d Cir. 32 stated that the phrase of employment" "terms and conditions interpreted must be in a limited sense and that the phrase does not include "every might issue that be of interest employers." unions or The court found that an is a issue term of employment only or condition if it materially and significantly employment affects employee's job or the NLRB, Seattle First Nat'l Bank v. security. 33, 444 F.2d at Thus, "terms and of employment" 35. conditions under the Board, National Labor seniority Relations include rights, benefits, pension gas pro a discount on the employer that to employees heating, vided for home food in-plant Ford prices and services employer controlled. NLRB, Co. v. Darigold Motor Hass v. 1851; 99 S. Ct. at Co., Dairy Prods. (9th 1096, 1985); 751 F.2d 1099 Cir. Co., Sheeran v. General Elec. (9th 93, 593 F.2d Cir. 96 1979) NLRB, Inland Steel Co. v. (citing 247, 170 F.2d denied, cert. (7th 1948), 960, 1112, Cir. 93 L. Ed. U.S. (1949) (pension issue), sub nom. Ameri S. Ct. 887 aff'd Ass'n, Douds, can Communications C.I.O. v. 339 U.S. (1950) (other issues)). 94 L. Ed. 70 Ct. S. *7 The formula that the to report used purposes unemployment eligi worked for of bility, applied case, and that it Pelto's does not concern hours, "wages, and other terms and conditions employ of is ment" and subject bargaining. riot to collective qualification method which is benefits determined has no impact on environment it is not working because applied until after the the employee leaves work environment. Sim the ilarly, security, formula does not concern job or an aspect of relationship employer the between the and the employee, job, relationship, because neither the nor the applied; exists the formula is the when formula becomes We, employment. relevant after the of only termination therefore, reject College's the contention that its hours worked, of hours computation controls the formula allowed term or con- it is a of because unemployment, for purposes collec- parties' to the subject and is employment dition agreement. bargaining tive parties' bar- the hours allowed formula the

Although way gov- to be a reasonable appears gaining agreement hours, irregular with situation employment erning an and inconsis- inequitable will formula invite the approving benefits unemployment State's of the tent administration unemployment for benefits eligibility programs. may vary, based not positions identical persons who hold the govern schemes that statutory regulatory the a par- on the terms of compensation program, but State's bargaining haphazard Such agreement. ticular collective Employment Security Act: purpose results defeat the of the equitably unemployment systemat- to allot the risks of periods ically during employment, accumulate funds remedy suffering which funds the will Further, unemployed causes each worker. RCW 50.01.010. express it purpose Employment is the interpretive regulations what con- Department's define computing worked" benefits purposes stitutes "hours for do regulations If the current WAC 192-16-002. eligibility. irregu- reporting problems address the adequately not create, adoption of a formula employment lar hours of purposes eligibil- of benefits compute hours worked for statewide, lies more with ity, apply appropriately will 50.12.010; RCW Security Department. WAC 192-16-002.

Affirmed. C.J.,

Alexander, concurs. Worswick, reverse the award of would (dissenting)—I J. assertion, formula majority's Contrary benefits. hours, wages, allowed" is related to determining "hours is, It there- employment. and conditions of or other terms under RCW bargaining for collective fore, proper subject *8 28B.52.020(8). A decision freely this negotiated for- binding mula is not now on Pelto integrity erodes the of bargaining. collective 28B.52.020(8), defining

RCW collective bargaining for academic in personnel community in colleges, states part: bargaining" "Collective and "bargaining" perform- mean the obligation ance of the mutual of representatives the the of employer at bargaining representative and the exclusive meet to bargain good reasonable times to faith an effort to hours, agreement respect wages,

reach and conditions with and other terms employment, procedures such as related to of nonretention, dismissal, tenure, denial of reduction force. (Italics mine.) terms, By very its the "hours allowed" for- employment. mula relates Because the for- mula, the college keep, require did not faculty members to keep, records of the actual hours worked. This accom- parties: modation both benefited the college spared was on keeping burden tabs faculty, and the faculty had flexibility maximum its duties fulfilling to the students and college. The formula served to quantify faculty per- formance without formal records or time clocks. That formula be might not used until an applied instructor for unemployment benefits did not make it unrelated Pelto's; "hours" a situation such as precisely the contrary is true.

Computation "procedures of hours is of the one related (Italics mine.) to nonretention dismissal". RCW [and] 28B.52.020(8). If term, a statute fails to define a the term is given meaning. its Davis v. ordinary Department Empl. Sec., (1987). 272, 277, 737 P.2d 1262 "Related" "having relationship means : connected reason an established or discoverable relation". Webster's Third New Dictionary International An application "procedure is a related to nonretention," formula* that comes into play when occurs is procedure. nonretention "related" to that Department's Even the regulation defining what hours be reported quarterly wage reports should supports requires here. RCW 50.12.070 formula used propriety *9 worker." each by hours worked "the employers report 192-16-002(4) "hours worked": further defines WAC irregular salary. employee If works Employees on a salaried weeks, the actual reported be he or she shall nonstandard number fig- time reliable worked. In the absence of of 40 reported for ures, employee will be a salaried full-time any his or her duties of week hours worked for each performed. mine.) (Italics employers report requiring from that Far instance, this every of hours worked precise numbers situations, such as will be that there regulation anticipates An kept. are not alterna- Pelto's, records which detailed number of hours used to determine the tive can then be and the col- by the union agreed worked. The formula spirit within the lege in this case is an alternative regulation. argues of this formula to resolve majority that use inequitable claims will "invite unemploy-

and inconsistent administration of the State's opposite at 73. Just the programs." Majority, ment benefits formula, bar- negotiated is true. Such a collective through situated workers. gaining, applies equally similarly when, results will be reached inequitable Inconsistent and here, can formula negotiated as an individual override the actually he worked a different number by testifying that hours. a proper because it was binding

The formula is on Pelto freely negotiated bargaining and was subject collective Employees In re by college. the union and the of Buffelen 205, (1948); Co., P.2d 194 Mfg. Lumber & 201 (1975), State, A.D.2d 371 N.Y.S.2d Antinore 389 N.Y.S.2d aff'd, 40 N.Y.2d 921, 358 N.E.2d a determined that Buffelen, Supreme our Court In binding on the agreement was vacation union-negotiated "voluntarily they that were members so claimant union closure. during plantwide vacation unemployed" Antinore, that reviewing court determined In bind a bargaining agreement valid collective terms of a public employee even when the employee disapproves the agreement negotiated Antinore, his representative, 10-11 (provision at for binding in disciplinary arbitration for civil proceedings employees valid; service held because provision negotiated by employee's bargaining collective agent, employee waived due process equal protection As rights). the Antinore court stated: plaintiff The fact that this ment approve agree- did not himself negotiated by representative his satis- now disclaims aspect faction with one agreement no makes it less binding upon him. involving any group Labor relations sizeable expected proceed cannot be only with each the consent of group. Orderly member of the be made and process requires agreements complied minority with even in the face of dissent disapproval. Antinore, at 10-11. plaintiff Antinore, Like the Pelto *10 exempt wants to himself provision from a duly valid of a negotiated bargaining collective agreement. He should not be allowed to do so. I dissent. granted

Review at 116 Wn.2d 1001 12434-3-II. August DivisionTwo. [No. 1990.] Appellants, v. Forsman, al, Patricia et Department, Respondent.