Decisions and Orders Digest for 2003
VOCATIONAL TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER TEACHERS, NEA-ALASKA vs. STATE OF ALASKA
and ALASKA STATE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, AFSCME LOCAL 52, AFL-CIO,
Decision and Order No. 262 (February
19, 2003). Based on factors in AS 23.40.090, we find that the training specialist
position, PCN 05-8530, at the Alaska Vocational Technical Center in Seward shares
a greater community of interest with members of the Alaska Vocational Technical
Education Center teachers' unit than with members of the general government
unit. There is no contract bar to the transfer of PCN 05-8530 from the Alaska
Vocational Technical Education Center teachers’ unit to the general government
unit on July 1, 2000. State of Alaska
appealed Agency decision and order to Superior Court in case number 1JU-03-00240
CI on March 25, 2003. On January 26, 2004, the Superior Court AFFIRMED the Agency
decision and order in case number 1JU-03-240 CI, stating “The ALRA’s
finding were comprehensive and credible” and that “The court finds
that its decision is reasonable and supported by the evidence.”
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES, & PILOTS PACIFIC MARITIME REGION ILA, AFL-CIO AND DISTRICT NO. 1 MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO vs. STATE OF ALASKA, Decision and Order No. 263 (April 21, 2003). The parol evidence rule bars consideration of the December 2, 1999, oral discussion between Respondent's employee Robert Doll and the Complainants. Alternatively, the Complainants failed to prove that their oral discussion with Doll produced a binding, enforceable agreement with the Respondent. The Complainants failed to prove that the Respondent committed an unfair labor practice by failing to bargain in good faith when Doll orally agreed -- during a break in formal negotiations -- to a procedure for unmanned layups.
ALASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION/AFT, AFL-CIO vs. STATE OF ALASKA, Decision and Order No. 264 (April 21, 2003). The Agency will decline to interpret a contract and will order the parties to arbitration when the subject of their dispute concerns the interpretation or construction of a term contained in the collective bargaining agreement, the grievance/arbitration provisions of the agreement contain a broad arbitration clause, and there is no specific exclusion of the matter in dispute.State of Alaska appealed Agency decision and order to Superior Court in case number 1-JU-03-00379-CI on May 19, 2003. On March 23, 2004, Superior court affirmed ALRA decision stating "The issue on appeal is whether a grievance was "granted" and "settled" at step three of the grievance procedure set out in the CBA. It stated in its conclusion that "The ALRA did not err in sending this matter to arbitration. The decision to do so is therefore AFFIRMED. The matter shall be arbitrated consistent with this order.
STATE OF ALASKA vs. INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF MASTERS, MATES, & PILOTS PACIFIC MARITIME REGION ILA, AFL-CIO AND DISTRICT NO. 1 MARINE ENGINEERS BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION, AFL-CIO, Decision and Order No. 265 (May 6, 2003). The Complainant failed to prove that the respondents committed an unfair labor practice by negotiating with state employee Robert Doll, who was not a member of the complainant's negotiating team. The Respondents' December 2, 1999, meeting with Doll regarding unmanned layups did not interfere with or coerce the Complainant in its designation of representative for collective bargaining negotiations with Respondents by asserting that Doll had the requisite authority to bind the Complainant to any agreement.
Back to Labor Relations