UNION OFFICIALS representing employees in a disciplinary action cannot be forced to divulge information acquired while representing a member in a pre-disciplinary meeting to the employer. Each party is responsible for documenting their own meetings.

That is the impact of a settlement reached between Grays Harbor County and Council 2 recently following the filing of an unfair labor practice by Council 2.

The ULP was filed following action taken by Grays Harbor County Public Services Director Paul Easter.

Easter had required a union officer to write a statement on what had taken place during a pre-disciplinary meeting. The union officer had attended the meeting as the employee’s union representative.

When discipline was imposed on the employee, county officials in part quoted from the statement that Easter had required from the union official.

Council 2 asserted that this requirement violated the employee’s right to union representation and filed the ulp, which alleged employer interference with employee rights, domination or assistance of a union and refusal to bargain.

The Public Employment Relations Commission requested that mediation meetings be held before a formal hearing in an attempt to resolve the dispute.

During the mediation, a dispute resolution settlement was reached between the county and the union and the ULP was withdrawn.

The settlement says that a county cannot require a union representative acting in the capacity of a shop steward to divulge any information learned about or discussed in a pre-disciplinary meeting while the official is responsible for representing the employee in that disciplinary matter.
If discipline is imposed, the normal rules of collective bargaining, grievance arbitration, applicable statutes or privilege will govern, the settlement says.

General Counsel Audrey Eide represented Council 2 in the mediation.