Decisions and Orders Digest for 1993
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers vs. Fairbanks North Star Borough School District and Education Support Staff Association, Decision & Order No. 153 (03/24/1993). Under AS 23.40.090, based on such factors as community of interest and the prohibition against unnecessarily fragmenting bargaining units, the unit appropriate for collective bargaining for the classified employees of the Fairbanks North Star Borough School District is the wall-to-wall unit of classified employees currently represented by the Education Support Staff Association.
Alaska Gateway Educ Support Personnel vs. Alaska Gateway School District, Decision & Order No. 154 (02/26/1993). The superintendent/board executive secretary assists and acts in a confidential capacity to the superintendent, who formulates, determines, and effectuates management policies in the area of collective bargaining. As such the secretary should be excluded from the general classified bargaining unit of classified employees at the school district.
Fairbanks Police Chapter, Alaska Public Employees Association vs. City of Fairbanks, Decision & Order No. 155 (02/26/1993). While the safety impact of a staffing decision is negotiable, the staffing decision itself is not a mandatory subject for bargaining because it is not a "term or condition of employment" under AS 23.40.250(8).
Mid-Kuskokwim Education Association vs. Kuspuk School District, Decision & Order No. 156 (03/08/1993). (1) When the resolution of a grievance eliminates an unfair labor practice, the Agency will dismiss the related unfair labor practice charge as moot. (2) A labor organization's attempt to persuade the governing body of a public employer to change its bargaining representative violates AS 23.40.110(c)(1)(B).
Confidential Employees Association vs. State of Alaska, Decision & Order No. 157 (04/07/1993). The labor analyst II and human resource managers exercise significant responsibility on behalf of the State in collective bargaining policy formulation and implementation and therefore are excluded from collective bargaining under PERA as "appointedofficials" in 2 AAC 10.220(a) and AS 23.40.250(6). The clerk typist III, who does not exercise significant responsibility in policy formulation and implementation, is not excluded and belongs in the confidential unit as an employee "who assists and acts in a confidential capacity" to the labor relations professionals who do formulate and implement policy under 2 AAC 10.220(b)(1). Decision Appealed: Confidential Employees Association vs. State of Alaska, Decision & Order No. 157 (04/07/1993). Superior Court REVERSED Agency decision and order AND REMANDED for a new Agency hearing in case number 1JU-93-0656CI on September 1, 1994. On October 12, 1994, the Superior Court issued an ORDER OF CLARIFICATION in 1JU-93-0656CI.
Alaska State Employees Ass'n/AFSCME Local 52 vs. State of Alaska(Health Benefits), Decision & Order No. 158 (05/14/1993). Failure to bargain before changing the terms of a health benefit plan is an unfair labor practice under AS 23.40.110(a)(5). Decision Appealed: Alaska State Employees Ass'n/AFSCME Local 52 vs. State of Alaska (Health Benefits), Decision & Order No. 158 (05/14/1993). Superior Court AFFIRMED Agency decision and order in case number 3AN-93-05800CI on June 14, 1994.
State of Alaska vs. Public Safety Employees Association, Decision & Order No.159 (04/22/1993). Because interest arbitration ground rules are not a mandatory subject of bargaining, a refusal to negotiate them is not an unfair labor practice. Because the parties agree they are at impasse and the State refuses to proceed to interest arbitration, the State is in violation of As 23.40.110(a)(5) and may be compelled to arbitrate under AS 23.40.200.
University of Alaska Classified Employees Association/APEA/AFT vs. University of Alaska, Decision & Order No. 160 (04/22/1993). The Alaska Labor Relations Board finds and concludes that the findings and conclusions in the investigative report are supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Therefore, the Alaska Labor Relations Board accepts and adopts as its own the Agency's investigative report, except to clarify that there are four ballots remaining to be counted.
Henry T. Munson vs. ASEA Local 52, Decision & Order No. 161 (06/25/1993). Labor organizations have a duty to represent all members of the bargaining unit fairly. This duty is violated by conduct that is arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. ASEA's actions representing general government unit member Henry Munson were not arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith and ASEA did not violate its duty to represent him fairly.
Northwest Arctic Education Association/NEA-Ak vs. Northwest Arctic Borough School District, Decision & Order No. 162 (06/30/1993). A single unit combining the vocational instructors and the certificated staff of a school district is an appropriate unit if the factors set forth in AS 23.40.090 are satisfied. However, a petition for clarification of the unit may not be used to consolidate two recognized bargaining units. The reason is that consolidation presents a question of representation and a self-determination election is needed to determine if the employees desire combined representation. Such an election may be barred by a collective bargaining agreement or an election under AS23.40.100(c) and (e) and 2 AAC 10.060 (b)(1) and (2).
Public Employees Local 71 vs. City of Haines, Decision & Order No. 163 (07/19/1993). The Public Employment Relations Act applies unless a municipality affirmatively acts to reject it by ordinance or resolution. Because a municipality must act promptly and not at its leisure, adopting a resolution rejecting PERA approximately four and one half years after the effective date is ineffective to reject PERA. Decision Appealed: Public Employees Local 71 vs. City of Haines, Decision & Order No. 163 (07/19/1993). Superior Court REMANDED Agency decision and order in case number 1JU-93-1301CI on March 8, 1994. See also, Agency Decision & Order No. 184 issued after remand. (02/14/95).
Alaska State Employees Association, AFSCME Local 52, AFL-CIO vs. State of Alaska (Re Transfer of 36 Positions), Decision & Order No. 164 (09/27/1993). When the legislature consolidated various housing programs in 1992, it intended that the ASEA/State collective bargaining agreement apply after the programs and employees moved to the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation. Whether the obligation to bargain also passed to AHFC depends on the successorship doctrine. We find in this case that AHFC did succeed to the State's obligation to bargain. Decision Appealed: Alaska State Employees Association, AFSCME Local 52, AFL-CIO vs. State of Alaska (Re Transfer of 36 Positions), Decision & Order No. 164 (09/27/1993). Superior Court AFFIRMED Agency decision and order in case number 3AN-93-10311CI and 3AN-93-11539CI (Consolidated) on August 9, 1994. Superior Court opinion was appealed to Supreme Court in case numbers S6600 and S6630. Supreme Court AFFIRMED in part, VACATED in part, and REMANDED to Superior Court in part on August 2, 1996.
State of Alaska vs. Public Employees Local 71 and Alaska State Employees Association, Afscme Local 52, AFL-CIO, Decision & Order No. 165 (07/01/1993). Based on factors in AS 23.40.090, we find that the safety officer, Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, northern region, shares a community of interest with the labor, trades and crafts unit rather than the general government unit.
Alaska State Employees Association/AFSCME Local 52 vs. State of Alaska, Decision & Order No. 166 (09/28/1993). A clerk IV who assists and acts in a confidential capacity to a personnel officer who formulates, determines and effectuates management policies in labor relations matters should be included in the confidential unit based on the factors in AS 23.40.090.
International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 302 vs. City of Kotzebue, Decision & Order No. 167 (12/06/1993). A city in a remote and evolving part of the state acted promptly and effectively to reject the Public Employment Relations Act under section 4, chapter 113, SLA 1972, when it acted within approximately four months of its reasonable discovery of the option to reject PERA.
Back to Decisions list || Back to Labor Relations || Summary