|
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date:
March 27, 2006
Contact:
PJ Callahan
Phone: (360) 337-4481
No. 06-26
County Commissioners Authorize Unfair Labor Practice Charge
Against Deputy Sheriff's Guild
PORT
ORCHARD, WA—The Kitsap Board of County Commissioners has
authorized the county prosecutor’s office to file an unfair labor practice
charge against the Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild. The charge is a
claim filed with the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission
(PERC) when one party feels another has violated the Public Employment
Relations Act. PERC has the authority to order parties to honor their legal
duty to bargain in good faith and to cease and desist from refusing to
bargain.
“Since August 2005, the county has worked
diligently in an attempt to bargain for a new labor agreement with the
Deputy Sheriff’s Guild before the end of 2005, which is when the current
three-year agreement expired.” said Rob Gudmundson, Kitsap County Labor
Relations Manager. “While the guild and the county have met nine times
regarding this contract, the guild has canceled or departed before the end
of five meetings and refused to meet on other occasions.”
Since November 28, 2005, the parties have only
met on one occasion. The county believes it is unlikely an agreement can be
reached unless the mediator assigned by PERC can try to find common ground.
The most contentious issue in the negotiations has been medical insurance.
The guild has indicated that it does not want to proceed with negotiations
as long as the county desires the deputies to be on the same medical plans
at the same contribution rates as all other county employees and elected
officials. The county was willing to increase overall contributions toward
medical insurance by 10% each year, but the deputies do not want any limits
on the county’s contributions. In 2005, an interest arbitrator awarded a
settlement placing the deputies on the same medical insurance plan at the
same county contribution rates as all other county employees and elected
officials; the deputies are now attempting to undo this award.
In March 2005, the county’s Medical Benefits
Committee began working with all of its respective unions to request quotes
for 2006 medical insurance renewals. In June, Mike Rodrigue, the guild’s
president, stated that the guild would not participate in the joint
labor-management Medical Benefits Committee, but indicated the guild’s
interest in receiving any quotes that the committee obtained from other
regional carriers. While not required to do so, the county did get other
quotes for the guild in order to move negotiations forward; however, ultimately
the guild did not propose any of these alternative plans.
Throughout late summer and fall 2005, the
county attempted to meet with representatives of the guild, but meetings
were repeatedly canceled by the guild demanding that the county provide new medical
insurance quotes. By December 19, the guild had not submitted a formal
written proposal regarding insurance or opening proposals on several
issues on which the guild itself had requested the opportunity to bargain.
“While the absence of any proposals on any
open subject makes bargaining difficult, the absence of a health insurance
proposal from the guild made it essentially impossible for the county to
proceed,” said Gudmundson. On December 23, 2005, the guild delivered its
opening health insurance proposal to the county, one week before the
expiration of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement and four months
after bargaining commenced.
“The county has continued to work through a
mediator to try to find a compromise,” summarized Gudmundson. “The guild has
avoided its duty to bargain in good faith by using dilatory and evasive
tactics.”
The guild has canceled bargaining sessions
unilaterally, refused to confirm bargaining dates to which it had previously
committed, used requests for information as a tool to delay rather than
advance negotiations and conditioned its willingness to bargain upon
provisions of information it knows the county does not possess and cannot
obtain within the time demanded. The guild has refused to meet and bargain
based on the county’s unwillingness to agree to retroactivity of terms to
which the parties have not reached agreement. And, most recently, after the
guild delayed negotiations past the contract renewal date, the guild
informed the county that it would not agree to any settlement that did not
compensate the guild’s members for the costs incurred by them as a result of
their own delay tactics.
“We are truly frustrated with the tactics of
the Deputy Sheriff’s Guild’s leadership and its counsel, Cline & Associates,
to delay the labor negotiations process,” said Jan Angel,
chair of the board. “While we’d rather take the high road and not have to
file this charge, the guild's representative has engaged in conduct aimed at preventing
consensus and has shown no willingness to reasonably consider legitimate
county interests.”
|
