Decisions and Orders Digest for 2010
ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 52, AFL-CIO vs. STATE OF ALASKA, Case No. 09-1546-CBA. Decision and Order No. 290 (January 22, 2010). 1. The Agency will not order the parties to arbitration when an alleged violation by the employer is specifically excluded from the arbitration process by the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Classification matters are excluded by Article 17 of the parties' agreement. 2. Establishment of the effective date of the classification action taken by the State on employee Norman Silta's position is a classification matter, excluded from arbitration by Article 17 of the parties' agreement. Further, effective dates for classification matters are provided for in the regulations for personnel matters. 3. The collective bargaining agreement between the Alaska State Employees Association and the State of Alaska provides that an arbitrator shall initially decide procedural arbitrability. The agreement does not give the arbitrator authority to decide substantive arbitrability. The Alaska Supreme Court has authorized this agency to decide substantive arbitrability unless the parties' agreement provides otherwise. 4. The dispute over Norman Silta's pay following the reallocation of his position or class involves the application and interpretation of Article 21.06(F)(2) and must be submitted to an arbitrator for resolution. 5. The Alaska Labor Relations Agency has not been authorized to enforce merit-system principles.
ALASKA CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, vs. STATE OF ALASKA, Case No. 09-1556-ULP, Decision and Order No. 291. (October 14, 2010). The State's motion to dismiss is granted. The issues contained in the unfair labor practice filed by the Alaska Correctional Officers Association are now moot. The only remedy ACOA requested was an order requiring the State to reimburse bargaining unit members for medical costs that ACOA contended were required to be paid under the parties' expired collective bargaining agreement. The State asserted that it is in the process of, or has completed this reimbursement. ACOA does not dispute the State's assertion. Therefore, there is no remedy that this Agency could order, and no live case or controversy in dispute. The issues for decision are therefore moot. Moreover, there are no public interest exceptions to the mootness doctrine, based on the specific facts of this case.
Back to Labor Relations