DOC guilty of ULPs at Snake River
By Allison Hassler
, Legal Counsel, Oregon AFSCME Council 75(Posted - January 13, 2001)
SALEM
- The Department of Corrections (DOC) has been found guilty of unfair labor practice charges filed by AFSCME at Snake River Correctional Institution in Ontario.Local 3940 at SRCI filed the ULP in January 2000, and the Employment Relations Board (ERB) issued its finding the week of Jan. 8 (2001). The complaint alleged a violation of the "Weingarten rights" of three corrections officers. The ERB affirmed that the DOC had violated their rights.
The background is this: in December 1999, three officers witnessed an incident in which an inmate assaulted an officer. After the inmate was under control, a lieutenant slapped the inmate on the head. All three officers wrote unusual reports concerning the assault. All three, for various reasons, initially did not include the fact that the lieutenant had slapped the inmate. All three later amended their reports to include the slap by the lieutenant.
When the three officers were questioned by the Special Investigations Unit, they all asked for union representation. They were denied representation
because, according to the DOC, they were not considered the subject of the investigation, but only witnesses to it. All three were concerned that the investigation could lead to discipline because of the content and timing of the reports they wrote.Local 3940 filed a ULP for the denial of the three officers
’ Weingarten rights. In its decision, the ERB found that the three officers had an objectively reasonable belief that the interview could lead to discipline. It noted that the DOC’s code of conduct requires complete reports and that officers have been disciplined for incomplete or untruthful reports in the past. Local 3940 President Kevin Jackson was instrumental in providing testimony on this point.The ERB went on to state that the status of "subject" or "witness" to the investigation was irrelevant to determining whether an employee had a Weingarten right. The important point, said ERB, is whether an employee reasonably believes that the interview could lead to discipline.
This decision is extremely important to DOC employees. Special Investigations can be extremely stressful and intimidating. Up until now, SIU investigators have been quick to deny union representation to employees. This decision affirms that anyone who believes he or she is at risk for discipline is entitled to union representation. Hopefully, this decision will encourage more employees to ask for representation when faced with an investigation, regardless of whether they are a subject or a witness.
(Allison Hassler is the Council 75 Legal Counsel.)