Decisions and Orders Digest for 2000

Back to Decisions list || Back to Labor Relations

ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 52, AFL-CIO vs. STATE OF ALASKA, Decision & Order No. 248 (02/07/2000). The classification dispute between ASEA and the State of Alaska is subject to the sole and exclusive method provided in Article 17 of the parties' contract, and not the Article 16 grievance-arbitration provision. The Board will not order arbitration of a matter that is clearly not arbitrable.

ALASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFT/AFL-CIO vs. CITY OF FAIRBANKS, Decision & Order No. 249 (03/24/2000). The wage survey dispute between the parties is subject to the arbitration procedure in the parties' collective bargaining agreement. The dispute concerns the interpretation, application, or alleged violation of a provision of their agreement.

ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 52, AFL-CIO vs. STATE OF ALASKA, Decision & Order No. 250 (6/19/00). (1) Terri Beach was a probationary employee at the time of her separation from State employment. The grievance procedure under Article 16 of the ASEA/State collective bargaining agreement does not apply to the dispute about her separation from employment. (2) The doctrine of detrimental reliance does not apply.

ALASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION/AFT, AFL-CIO v. CITY OF FAIRBANKS, Decision & Order No. 251 (12/05/00). (1) The totality of the City's conduct regarding its negotiations with APEA and its actions, did not show bad faith bargaining in violation of AS 23.40.110(a)(1), (2) and (5). (2) There is no causal relationship between statements or actions by officials from the City of Fairbanks and the decertification process initiated by members of the APEA. The City did not unlawfully encourage or assist APEA members in their decertification efforts.

ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 52, AFL-CIO v. STATE OF ALASKA, Decision & Order No. 252 (12/14/00). An employer violates AS 23.40.110(a)(3) and AS 23.40.110(a)(1) when it terminates an employee because the employee contacted a union steward about an agreement to extend the probationary period.

Back to Decisions list || Back to Labor Relations || Summary

###