Committee hears PERC changes; public employers raise concerns about settlement-waiver ban

A committee briefing Friday described substitute Senate Bill 5503, which makes multiple changes to the Public Employment Relations Commission’s (PERC) procedures, from bargaining-unit certification to adjudicative hearings and subpoena enforcement.

Ben McCarthy, committee staff, outlined six changes in the bill: updates to challenges to employee eligibility in bargaining units (including a required offer of proof for challenges), new steps when a petition for a new unit is inappropriate, a standardized process for consolidating units represented by a single organization, authority for PERC hearing officers to set hearing dates unilaterally (with motions allowed to change dates), authority to draw adverse inferences from refusal to comply with subpoenas, and a prohibition on public employers requiring workers to waive statutory claims under state or federal law as a condition of settling grievances.

Sponsor Senator Javier Valdez described the bill as modernizing older procedures and said stakeholders had agreed to language changes in the Senate: he said PERC had been effective in past representation matters and the bill “make[s] it easier to get a hearing date scheduled, and I think provide some greater authority to merge your units if PERC deems appropriate.”

Why it matters: Labor unions said the bill addresses practices that delay grievance resolution and can pressure workers to give up statutory claims. Employers and local-government associations warned one provision (section 4) would discourage settlements and create duplicative litigation risks, and several speakers asked for clarifying amendments.

Labor testimony: Dane Ostering of SEIU 1199 Northwest described section 4 as central, saying, “Section 4 prohibits public employers from requiring workers to waive their state or federal rights in a grievance settlement agreement.” Samantha Grama of Teamsters Local 117 gave a case example in which a worker had to choose between a grievance settlement and pursuing a racial-discrimination lawsuit; she said the employee “was forced to set down the grievance and go with the racial discrimination case.” Melissa Staples, a bargaining representative and nurse, described grievances delayed for months and employer demands that employees withdraw administrative complaints as conditions for settlement.

Employer testimony and concerns: Candace Bach of the Association of Washington Cities and James Coburn of the Washington Public Ports Association said the settlement-waiver prohibition would prevent efficient, voluntary resolutions and could increase legal costs; Doug Morrill of Summit Law Group said the provision “would be a major impediment for employers to settle” and could produce more adjudicative hearings. Paul Jewell of the Washington State Association of Counties voiced similar objections. Sherry Sawyer of the Office of Financial Management said stakeholders were discussing language changes and that she believed proponents and the sponsor were close to agreed amendments.

Committee process and status: Union proponents and several public employers said they had been negotiating possible language changes; committee staff said a revised draft would be circulated. No final committee vote was taken on SB 5503 at this meeting.

Ending note: The hearing highlighted a central policy tension: preventing employers from conditioning settlements on workers’ surrender of statutory claims, versus preserving the ability of parties to reach voluntary, efficient settlements without unintended litigation or administrative burdens.