Teamsters Local 839 represents correctional officers in the Franklin County Jail in Washington State. The CBA between Local 839 and Franklin County Corrections provides that “the labor representative of the union may visit the work location of employees covered by this agreement at any reasonable time for the purpose of investigating grievances. Such representative shall limit activities during such investigations to matters relating to this agreement. County work hours shall not be used by employees or union representatives for the promotion of union affairs other than stated above.”
Beginning in April 2020, Local 839’s labor representative began visiting employees at the jail. Initially, he would call ahead of time, and pass through security before entering. Eventually, he was no longer required to go through security, and would be escorted inside by an employee. The labor representative would meet with members in the jail’s offices to investigate grievances relating to ordinary union-management disputes, such as contractual meals for employees working overtime, the procedure for signing up for overtime, and the method of passing medication to inmates. He didn’t walk around the jail unattended, and if it was necessary to visit a location within the jail, he was escorted to the master control station to observe the areas of the inmates.
In October 2020, the labor representative came to the jail at the request of a corporal who was threatened with discipline. A few days later, the sheriff emailed the labor representative about this meeting, stating that command “staff would no longer respond to the labor representative” and “this developing environment of corrections deputies squealing to their union rep when they don’t get their way is coming to an end.” Two weeks later, the labor representative was denied access to the jail, and was told that he would no longer be allowed inside the jail, and that if he needed to inspect an area inside, he would be escorted by the sheriff or a human resources representative. Local 839 grieved this new policy, and an arbitrator eventually sustained the grievance, ordering the County to rescind its October 2020 prohibition on visits by the labor representative. The County did not comply with the Arbitrator’s award and continued to deny the labor representative access to the jail.
In April 2022, the County issued new rules regarding the labor representative’s access. The rules allowed for visits, but (1) restricted the areas inside the jail in which the representative was permitted; (2) required the representative to notify the commander who he was visiting and when; and (3) required the purpose of the visit to be a grievance already filed, as opposed to a potential grievance. Local 839 and the County had a second hearing before the Arbitrator to determine whether the County had complied with the award. The Arbitrator concluded that the County remained out of compliance and ordered it to permit the representative 24/7 access to the jail and rescind the new conditions on visits. Local 839 sued the County to enforce the original arbitration award, and both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The Court sided with Local 839, and the County appealed.
On appeal, the Court affirmed. It rejected the County’s argument that the first arbitration award violated public policy by jeopardizing jail security. The Court noted that the County had not necessarily proven that such a public policy is explicit, well defined, and dominant, as required under the law. Even if it had, the County failed to prove that the arbitration award violated such a policy because “the Arbitrator found that the parties’ past practices had not created any security issues.” The Arbitrator considered how, prior to the new rule, the labor representative had generally unmitigated access to the jail and was even permitted to enter without passing through security, and that these practices never gave rise to a security issue. Therefore, the arbitration award did not run afoul of any public policy regarding jail security and was lawful and enforceable.
Teamsters Local 839 v. Franklin County, No. 39814-5-III, 2024 WL 3199924 (Ct. App. Wash., 2024).