Clallam County v. Public Employment Relations Commission

Citations: 719 P.2d 140; 43 Wash. App. 589Docket: 7268-8-II

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington; May 6, 1986; Washington; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Washington State Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court's decision regarding the Public Employment Relations Commission's (PERC) finding that Clallam County committed an unfair labor practice against Mark Baker, a former employee. Baker, who had an impressive educational background and satisfactory job performance, was terminated on October 22, 1980, after a series of conflicts with his superiors. The disputes began in early 1980 over the interpretation of a vacation pay provision in the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which Baker believed allowed him to take vacation days on holidays for double pay. After his request was denied, Baker was informed by the Union that his interpretation was incorrect.

Further conflict arose when Baker expected to be promoted to appraiser after completing a three-month probationary period as outlined in a new personnel ordinance adopted on June 30, 1980. After confirming his eligibility, he inquired about his promotion but was rebuffed by his supervisor, Linnell. Following this, Baker drafted a written grievance and sought a meeting with the County Assessor, Lancaster. Despite multiple attempts to meet, Baker's grievance remained unresolved, leading to his eventual termination. The case highlights issues regarding the interpretation of labor agreements and the handling of employee grievances in a public employment context.

Lancaster reassured Baker about a deadline, but Baker insisted on written confirmation due to a lack of trust stemming from Lancaster's failure to keep an appointment and his perception of Lancaster as dishonorable for signing a flawed reevaluation. Following this confrontation, Linnell reprimanded Baker for not trusting his supervisor and suggested he seek other employment. Despite this, Baker was promoted to appraiser on August 15, 1980, while receiving a reprimand for his comments. Baker continued his work with minor issues and took a "Commercial I" test without authorization, later requesting to take the "Commercial II" course, which Linnell denied. Undeterred, Baker ordered the course materials at his expense. 

On October 21, 1980, Baker interpreted Linnell’s directive to keep county cars hidden from the commissioners as allowing him to do paperwork at a library instead of his assigned area. He parked the county vehicle out of sight in a nearby lot. The sheriff’s office noticed the parked car and informed Linnell and Lancaster, who then removed it. When Baker returned to find his car missing, he was summoned back to the office, where Linnell informed him of his termination for misuse of the county vehicle. Linnell and Lancaster also expressed discontent with Baker's frequent union complaints regarding minor workplace issues.

William Corcoran testified that "in the field" refers to his assigned reevaluation area, mentioning his work at Peninsula College. He advised Baker against parking the county car on the main street. Deputy assessor Jack Witschger pointed out that the assessor's office policy required paperwork to be completed in the office. Lancaster noted that a deputy who took a county car home during work hours had not faced termination. Evidence from a Clallam County Commissioners hearing revealed Linnell's comments regarding Baker's vacation pay request, suggesting it indicated Baker's unwillingness to accept supervision, contributing to his dismissal. Linnell attempted to clarify that this request was part of a broader attitude issue and acknowledged his error in stating Baker had involved the Union regarding the vacation pay. Linnell explained that Baker was not fired after an insubordination incident due to staffing shortages. The examiner concluded that Clallam County violated RCW 41.56.140(1) by terminating Baker for exercising rights under the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act, a decision affirmed by PERC. Clallam County appealed to the Superior Court, which reversed the administrative decision as clearly erroneous. Baker subsequently appealed this ruling. The administrative procedure act outlines that judicial review can affirm, remand, or reverse agency decisions if substantial rights were prejudiced due to legal errors or clear errors in the record. Appellate review is based solely on the administrative tribunal's record, with de novo examination for legal questions. Courts typically defer to the administrative agency's expertise in specialized legal fields, particularly in labor relations law. An administrative decision is deemed "clearly erroneous" if the reviewing court is firmly convinced a mistake occurred.

The reviewing court must defer to the expertise of the administrative agency, specifically PERC, and cannot replace its judgment. The focus is on whether PERC correctly determined that Clallam County engaged in an unfair labor practice by terminating Mark Baker. Under RCW 41.56.140, it is unlawful for a public employer to interfere with employees’ exercise of their rights. This statute aligns closely with section 8(a)(1) of the Labor Management Relations Act, and the appropriate test for violations was established by the National Labor Relations Board in Wright Line, which involves a two-part causation analysis. Initially, the employee must demonstrate that their conduct was protected and significantly influenced the employer's decision to terminate them. If successful, the burden shifts to the employer to prove that the termination would have occurred regardless of the protected conduct.

To assess Baker's case, the court must answer three critical questions. First, whether Baker's vacation pay request and promotion were considered grievances under the collective bargaining agreement, which defines a grievance as an issue related to employment rights, responsibilities, or benefits. The County argued that Baker did not formally raise these issues through the Union and that his promotion grievance was never filed. However, the court found these arguments unconvincing, noting that grievances do not require a formal process and can be presented verbally to a supervisor as per the contract. Thus, both issues raised by Baker qualified as grievances.

Second, it must be determined whether the act of raising a grievance is protected under RCW 41.56. The statute defines collective bargaining to include the execution of grievance procedures, suggesting that pursuing grievances is indeed a protected right under the law.

Baker's pursuit of grievances related to vacation pay and promotion is recognized as a protected right under RCW 41.56, making it an unfair labor practice for a public employer to terminate an employee for seeking resolution of such grievances. The evidence supports that these grievances were motivating factors in Clallam County's decision to terminate Baker, despite claims from Linnell that they were minor and not the true cause. Previous testimony from Linnell indicated that the vacation pay issue did influence the termination decision, and both Linnell and Lancaster expressed significant displeasure regarding the promotion grievance. Baker needed only to establish a prima facie case to suggest his protected activities were a motivating factor, which the reviewing court found was not "clearly erroneous."

Clallam County had the burden to prove that Baker would have been terminated regardless of his protected conduct. The County's reliance on the October 21, 1980, hidden car incident as justification for termination was undermined by evidence that Baker believed he was following the assessor's office policies, despite his misinterpretation of those policies. Testimony indicated that the County had not consistently enforced these policies, highlighting issues of disparate treatment that weakened the County's position. Although Baker had performance issues, the overall evidence did not convincingly support that the termination was solely due to non-protected conduct. Consequently, the trial court's decision was reversed, reinstating the administrative determination that Baker's termination was influenced by his engagement in protected activities. The concurring opinion acknowledged the challenges employers face in dual-motive cases but deferred to PERC's conclusion regarding the motive for Baker's termination.

PERC's finding that Clallam County acted with antiunion animus in terminating Baker is deemed unsupported and erroneous. The dissenting opinion emphasizes that the evidence suggesting Clallam County's motive for firing Baker is weak, merely amounting to a "scintilla." PERC determined that Baker was let go for attempting to leverage the union contract to gain additional benefits, specifically double vacation pay. The sole evidence for this conclusion stems from an inappropriate remark made by Linnell to the County Commissioners, which was factually incorrect and clarified in subsequent testimony. The dissent argues that Clallam County successfully demonstrated it did not terminate Baker for engaging in protected activities under the union-negotiated contract. It acknowledges the definition of protected rights but contends that the overall record and public policy indicate no intent to penalize Baker for such rights. The dissent critiques PERC's conclusion of antiunion animus as baseless, asserting that Clallam County's actions were instead a response to Baker's aggressive behavior and misinterpretation of the contract. The dissent concludes that PERC's findings are fundamentally flawed and should be overturned.

The excerpt critiques the majority's interpretation of the standard for reviewing the Board's findings, emphasizing that credible evidence supporting the Board's conclusion does not preclude a finding of clear error. The author asserts a definitive conviction that a mistake was made, advocating for the trial court's order to reverse the Board’s decision. The text references a specific agreement regarding holiday pay and outlines the context of a hearing about Baker's unemployment benefits. Testimony reveals management's concerns about Baker's work habits and interactions with the Union concerning vacation time. Additionally, it notes PERC's orders for Clallam County to avoid discrimination against employees exercising protected rights and to reinstate Baker with back pay. The judge found that only Baker's promotion request constituted protected activity, dismissing the vacation pay issue as a grievance due to a lack of formal documentation. The County's argument regarding Baker’s trainee status and Union rights is deemed unpersuasive. PERC's conclusion regarding antiunion animus is also challenged, with the author arguing that it lacks evidentiary support and should be disregarded.