## Facts

- Metro acquired the City of Seattle’s commuter-pool program, including clerical employees represented by Local 17.
- A transportation statute governing the acquisition required Metro to assume existing labor contracts and to bargain with existing unions.
- After the April 1984 transfer, Metro refused to recognize or bargain with Local 17, asserting the union did not represent an appropriate bargaining unit.
- Local 17 filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with PERC in February 1985 based on Metro’s refusal to bargain.
- A PERC hearing examiner found Metro engaged in persistent bad-faith resistance to bargaining, raised frivolous defenses, and was likely to continue evading its bargaining duty absent a strong remedy.
- PERC ordered a staged remedy: restore the status quo, require good-faith negotiations, provide mediation on request, and—if impasse persisted—require compulsory interest arbitration to set unresolved terms of a new agreement.
- Metro sought judicial review; the lower court rejected PERC’s authority to impose interest arbitration as a ULP remedy.

## Issues

1. Whether RCW 41.56 authorizes PERC to order compulsory interest arbitration as part of a remedy for an employer’s unfair labor practice consisting of a persistent refusal to recognize and bargain with the exclusive representative.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed the lower court and reinstated PERC’s remedial order.
- The court held PERC may, in limited circumstances, require interest arbitration as a ULP remedy under RCW 41.56.
- The court gave substantial deference to PERC’s remedial choice and concluded the staged order was aimed at restoring lawful collective bargaining and effectuating the statute’s policies.

## Legal Principles

- PERC possesses broad remedial authority under RCW 41.56 to fashion orders that effectuate the policies of public-sector collective bargaining, and its remedial determinations receive considerable judicial deference.
- Statutory silence on a particular remedy does not bar its use when the agency’s general remedial grant implies authority to impose effective, policy-consistent relief for unfair labor practices.
- Interest arbitration (setting terms of a future contract after impasse) is more intrusive than grievance arbitration (interpreting an existing contract), but it may be used as a remedial tool when tailored to cure egregious bargaining violations.
- Compulsory interest arbitration is permissible only as an exceptional, last-resort remedy, appropriately structured to follow restoration of the status quo and meaningful opportunities for good-faith bargaining and mediation.

## Conclusion

The court held that PERC’s broad remedial powers under RCW 41.56 include authority to order compulsory interest arbitration as a narrowly tailored remedy for serious, persistent refusal to bargain, and it reinstated PERC’s staged order designed to restore lawful collective bargaining.


Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle v. Public Emp. Rels. Comm’n, 118 Wash. 2d 621, 826 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1992)