## Facts

- A Kelso police officer, Darrell Stair, participated in a high-speed pursuit that ended in a traffic accident.
- The City concluded Stair violated traffic laws and departmental pursuit regulations and imposed a 2.5-day suspension.
- Stair timely invoked two processes: (1) civil service appeal to the City’s Civil Service Commission and (2) a grievance under the police union’s collective-bargaining agreement (CBA), leading to arbitration.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the Commission found violations and increased discipline to a 10-day suspension.
- Arbitration proceeded on whether the City had “just cause” under the CBA; the City argued the Commission’s ruling precluded arbitration, but the arbitrator rejected preclusion and heard the grievance.
- The arbitrator found violations occurred but ruled the City lacked “just cause” for the suspension under the CBA and reduced the discipline to a written reprimand.
- The Commission sought declaratory relief in superior court, arguing its earlier decision was res judicata and rendered the arbitration award unenforceable.
- The superior court agreed and gave effect to the Commission’s 10-day suspension; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a civil service commission’s quasi-judicial discipline decision precludes a public employee from arbitrating the same discipline under a CBA.
2. Whether res judicata or collateral estoppel applies to bar arbitration or invalidate an arbitrator’s award when the civil service forum acted first.
3. Whether differences in parties, interests, and governing standards (“for cause”/“good faith” vs. “just cause”) defeat preclusion.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed.
- The Commission’s decision did not have res judicata or collateral estoppel effect to bar the CBA arbitration.
- The arbitrator’s award reducing discipline to a written reprimand was enforceable notwithstanding the Commission’s earlier order.
- The officer could pursue remedies in both the civil service process and arbitration absent clear statutory or contractual language requiring an election of remedies.

## Legal Principles

- Administrative preclusion applies only when traditional elements (including identity of parties/privies and identity of claims/issues) are satisfied and preclusion is consistent with legislative policy.
- Civil service review and CBA arbitration may coexist for public employees; courts will not infer that one remedial system displaces the other without clear direction from statute or contract.
- A civil service determination applying “for cause”/“good faith” standards does not automatically preclude arbitration under a CBA “just cause” standard when the legal rights and institutional interests addressed are materially different.

## Conclusion

Washington law permits a public employee to seek both civil service review and CBA arbitration over discipline unless the legislature or the CBA clearly provides otherwise; a civil service commission’s discipline ruling does not, by itself, preclude arbitration or invalidate a conflicting arbitration award.


Civil Serv. Comm’n v. City of Kelso, 137 Wash. 2d 166, 969 P.2d 474 (1999)