Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bill would let Department of Corrections bargaining unit negotiate separate master agreement; sponsor calls change a simplification
Summary
Senate Bill 5433 would exempt exclusive bargaining representatives for Department of Corrections employees from coalition bargaining rules that apply to other state agencies, allowing a separate master collective bargaining agreement for DOC employees who have interest-arbitration rights.
Get email alerts on the Labor Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 5433 would modify collective bargaining procedures so that exclusive bargaining representatives for Department of Corrections (DOC) employees negotiate a master collective-bargaining agreement separate from the general government coalition bargaining process.
Jarrett Sacks, committee staff, described the existing multi-employer/corporate coalition-bargaining structure under the Personnel System Reform Act (PSRA) and said the bill would exempt exclusive bargaining representatives of interest-arbitration-eligible DOC employees from coalition-bargaining rules that otherwise require units representing fewer than 500 employees to bargain in a coalition.
The sponsor said the change is intended to reduce logistical friction at the bargaining table: when the DOC unit (about 1,300 employees, sponsors said) is at a different bargaining phase (interest arbitration) than other general government units, it slowed the process. Unions representing the DOC unit supported the change; Katie Durkin of the Washington Federation of State Employees described it as a small technical fix that would simplify bargaining without changing substantive rights.
A fiscal note originally showed an unexpected $600,000 impact arising from a small ferry-worker unit that would have been treated differently under the bill. The sponsor said he will offer an amendment to exclude that small unit and avoid the fiscal effect.
The committee heard a single pro witness in person and did not vote on the bill.
