Decisions and Orders Issued

1. Laborers International Union of North America Local 341, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302, AFL-CIO vs. City of Whittier, Decision & Order No. 242 (03/03/1999). Excluding temporary employees from the bargaining unit of Department of Public Works (DPW) employees at the City of Whittier would cause unnecessary fragmentation. Under AS 23.40.090, the temporary employees share a sufficient community of interest with the permanent DPW employees to form an appropriate unit. The position occupied by Ben Leniz is not a supervisory position under 8 AAC 97.990(a)(5) and is included in the bargaining unit.

2. State Of Alaska, Alaska Marine Hwy System vs. Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific, Alaska Region, Decision & Order No. 243 (04/09/1999). The IBU’s delay in collective bargaining negotiations was not unreasonable because it had a right to delay the negotiating process to conduct a pre-impasse strike vote, under Inlandboatmen’s Union of the Pacific v. State of Alaska, 3 AN-95-5882 CI (February 14, 1997).

3. Fairbanks Fire Fighters Association, IAFF Local 1324 vs. City of Fairbanks, Decision & Order No. 244 (06/08/1999). The dispute between the parties is subject to the arbitration procedure set forth in the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

4. Alaska State Employees Association/AFSCME Local 52, AFL-CIO, vs. State of Alaska, Department of Administration, Division of Personnel/EEO, Decision & Order No. 245 (11/17/1999). Prior to impasse and absent necessity, a compelling business justification or contractual provisions to the contrary, the State violates AS 23.40.110(a)(5) and (a)(1) by implementing a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining, such as health benefit costs.

5. Alaska State Employees Association/AFSCME Local 52, AFL-CIO vs. State of Alaska, Department of Administration, Division of Personnel/EEO, Decision & Order No. 246 (12/16/1999). Prior to impasse and absent necessity, a compelling business justification or contractual provisions to the contrary, the State violates AS 23.40.110(a)(5) and (a)(1) by implementing a unilateral change to a mandatory subject of bargaining, such as health benefit costs. A decision will be affirmed when a reconsideration petition makes essentially the same arguments that were made in the underlying case.

6. Fairbanks Fire Fighters Association, Local 1324 IAFF, vs. City of Fairbanks, Decision & Order No. 247 (12/14/1999). A threat by the employer of legal action against an employee/union business agent for filing grievances is a violation of AS 23.40.110(a)(5) and (a)(1). The fact that the employer decided to include a so-called reservation of rights statement along with the threat does not diminish the effect of the threat of legal action for damages.

Back to Labor Relations || Summary || Contents