HOUSE BILL REPORT

HB 114

BYRepresentatives Sayan, Patrick, Wang, R. King, Fisch and Winsley

Extending effect of expired collective bargaining agreement.

House Committe on Commerce & Labor

Majority Report:     The substitute bill be substituted therefor and the substitute bill do pass.  (6)

     Signed by Representatives Wang, Chair; Fisch, Fisher, R. King, O'Brien and Sayan.

Minority Report:     Do not pass.  (3)

     Signed by Representatives Patrick, Sanders and C. Smith.

House Staff:Chris Cordes (786-7117)

AS REPORTED BY COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE & LABOR FEBRUARY 9, 1987

BACKGROUND:

Generally, it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to make unilateral changes in wages or terms and conditions of employment during the existence of a labor contract or when collective bargaining is pending, without negotiating on these issues with the properly designated union.  Under the National Labor Relations Act, however, an employer may be allowed to unilaterally implement the terms of the employer's last offer at the bargaining table if the employer and the union have reached bargaining impasse.  Recently, the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC) has applied this rule in cases involving state public employment.

In a 1983 case decided by a PERC hearing examiner, a union argued that an employer's implementation of a change in working conditions was improper because the parties had not negotiated to impasse on the issue.  The hearing examiner found that the parties were at impasse and concluded, therefore, that no unfair labor practice had been committed by the employer's unilateral change in working conditions.

The issue was again brought before the Public Employment Relations Commission in 1985.  In this case, the union argued that unilateral implementation of changes in a mandatory bargaining subject, whether or not impasse is reached, is an unfair labor practice.  The commission rejected the union's argument, holding that the employer had not committed an unfair labor practice by implementing changed hours and working conditions in this case, where the parties had bargained in good faith to genuine deadlock.

SUMMARY:

SUBSTITUTE BILL:  All of the terms and conditions of a collective bargaining agreement remain in effect after the termination date of the agreement until a new agreement is executed by the parties.  This provision does not apply to collective bargaining for public utility districts employees.

SUBSTITUTE BILL COMPARED TO ORIGINAL:  The new provision requiring the terms and conditions of a terminated collective bargaining agreement to remain in effect is moved to a separate section.  A provision is added to make the bill inapplicable to collective bargaining for public utility district employees.

Fiscal Note:    Requested February 11, 1987.

House Committee ‑ Testified For:     Sam Kinville and Pamela Bradburn, Washington State Council of County and City Employees; Al Brisbois, Washington State Labor Council; Bob Fisher, Washington Education Association; Joe Daniels, Professional and Technical Engineers; Eugene St. John, Washington Public Employees Association; Robert Ball, Washington State Nurses Association; and Mike Ryherd, Teamsters.

House Committee - Testified Against: Gary Lowe, Washington State Association of Counties; Ben Edlund, Washington State School Directors' Association; Kathleen Collins, Association of Washington Cities; Everett Rosmith, City of Seattle; and Larry Yok, Pierce Transit.

House Committee - Testimony For:     When public employers are allowed to implement their last offer, the employees are unable to take any action to continue negotiations for a new agreement when there is no clear right to strike.

House Committee - Testimony Against: There is no demonstrated need to change the delicate balance in existing public employees collective bargaining law.  The law has safeguards to prevent employers' misuse of the right to implement an offer.