Washington State Department Of Corrections Collective Bargaining Agreement

Leave a comment

¶ 3 in August 2009; Cherry logged into doc`s intranet, “Inside DOC,” and read an article about doc hiring a former state senator to advocate for inmate victims. “Inside DOC” was linked to a press article that included the salary of this new defender of prisoner victims. After reading these articles, Cherry used his DOC computer to send an email from his DOC email address to all employees of the Correctional Centre, which read: 8. The Teamsters claim that the Supreme Court erred in failing to protect Cherry`s union activities; however, we do not consider the Appeal Decisions of the Superior Court when reviewing an administrative measure in the context of the administrative complaint. See Postema, 142 Wn.2d to 77. Therefore, we focus instead on the Teamsters` assertion that the PERC misinterpreted state law. ¶ 23 In contrast, the two emails from Cherry`s DOC did not involve organizing, filing complaints or participating in collective bargaining. Cherry`s emails never mention a union connection, union activities or Cherry`s position as a steward. On the contrary, Cherry admitted to DOC that his first email “was not a union company,” “did not mention anything about the union,” and was not “related to the union.” CP at 387. Given that Cherry`s first email, which concerned hiring a lawyer for victims of prisoners, had no evidence of union activity or Cherry`s role as a shop steward, this email was clearly not a union activity protected by state law. 11. The Teamsters apply a “damning evidence” test when claiming that the protocol supports the conclusion that state law protected their emails.

Br. of the Appellant at age 31 (capital omitted). However, they do not appear to dispute the validity of the PERC`s findings, but their legal findings that Cherry`s emails were not protected. As already mentioned, we review the legal conclusions of the PERC de novo. Pasco Police Officers` Ass`n, 132 Wn .2d to 458. Thus, the Teamsters` standard of “overwhelming evidence” does not apply. ¶ 13 Washington lawmakers passed RCW 41.80,050 to protect the right of public sector employees to unionize and bargain collectively. It provides that public unionized workers have the right to go too organic, to form, join or support workers` organizations, and to conduct collective bargaining by representatives of their choice for the purposes of collective bargaining without interference, coercion or coercion. Employees also have the right to abstain from some or all of these activities. 12.

The Teamsters draw widespread conclusions that they claim to support with their overwhelming evidence. They note that Cherry served as an “effective advocate for employees, participating in protected and collaborative activities.” Fr. der Beschwerdeführerin bei 35. As mentioned earlier, the Washington law does not protect the “concerted activity” of public sector employees. The Teamsters also note that employees and management perceived Cherry as the “linchpin of the union in terms of communication and distribution of information.” Fr. der Beschwerdeführerin bei 35. Again, the Teamsters do not link Cherry`s role as a union leader to these emails. Finally, the Teamsters assert that DOC`s conduct of temporarily suspending online access to Cherry`s DOC and issuing a letter of reprimand “had a deterrent effect on them and other members of the bargaining unit.” Fr. der Beschwerdeführerin bei 35. Even if it`s true, the Teamsters don`t show how this conclusion matters here. .

Comments are closed.