By Jim Cline and Kim Lowe
In Grant County Sheriff’s Office, Arbitrator Latsch granted a grievance regarding management’s decision to unilaterally change the scheduling system for the Corrections Officers. He ordered Grant County to reinstate the schedule that was in effect prior to the unilateral change and to bargain any further changes to scheduling with the union.
In April 2019, Chief Deputy for Corrections Kriete issued a new schedule. Where the existing schedule kept crews on the same day or night schedule, the new schedule would require 8-week rotating day and night shifts for all members of the bargaining unit. The new rotating schedule would be implemented with no consideration for seniority. Kriete announced this change would take effect on July 1.
The Union argued that Grant County improperly modified the shift structure without negotiations as required in the contract. The existing structure was well-established and substantive changes were not allowed without prior negotiation, which the Sheriff’s Office refused to do.
Grant County argued it had the right to make shift changes at issue in the contract and in its inherent authority to operate the jail facility. The old shift structure was causing personnel problems because employees suffered working all night shifts. It argued further that the application of seniority in this case prohibited reasonable rotation of employees to different shifts.
Arbitrator Latsch held that Local 760 proved there was a violation of the contract despite the Union and County disagreeing over the definition of the terms “work shift” and “work period” in the contract.
“Ultimately, it does not matter whether we are addressing the work schedule or the work period because the Employer modified both. The record clearly shows that the changes were made without prior negotiation with the Union. I must conclude that the Employer has violated the collective bargaining agreement in this case.”
Arbitrator Latsch also rejected Grant County’s management rights argument as well:
“In this case, the clear language of the collective bargaining agreement states that the Employer must engage in negotiations if changes are to be made in the existing work schedule and work period. The Employer must engage in good faith negotiation before a change can be made. This is specific language that must be given more weight than the management rights clause.”
Ken Latsch’s previous history as a Washington PERC hearing officer may have played an important role in this outcome. Under PERC standards the CBA language did not constitute a “waiver” of bargaining rights that would have allowed management to make unilateral changes.
The employer assertion that this management rights clause gave them such a right was misplaced. Working conditions that are subject to a duty to bargain cannot be changed by invoking management rights language unless that language states in “clear and unequivocal” terms that the union has “waived” its bargaining rights and conferred authority to management. General language does not constitute a waiver.
Here it seems management simply misunderstood the meaning of its contract language. The language saying the parties would “meet” to discuss changes cannot properly be interpreted to be a “waiver.” If anything, the language underscored that negotiations would precede any change.
**Visit our Premium Website for more information on Hours of Work, Scheduling, and Overtime**
