No Anti-Union Animus In Fire District’s Refusal To Promote Union President

Written on 10/11/2024
LRIS

Captain Ryan Reese worked for Clark County Fire District 6 in Washington for 24 years and was the union president. On August 17, 2021, the District announced a promotional exam for battalion chief. Reese was ranked at the top of the promotional list, followed by Captain Scott Johns and Captain Jeff Killeen. According to the negotiated promotional process, the only remaining step was an in-person interview. The list would remain active for 18 months, and the District would not schedule interviews until a vacancy for battalion chief arose.

In his role as union president, Reese was involved in a disciplinary grievance for a firefighter who received a written reprimand. At the first two steps of the grievance process, Fire Chief Kristan Maurer proposed to reduce the written reprimand to a verbal reprimand, but the Union refused. At the third step, on August 17, 2022, the District Board of Commissioners offered to reduce the discipline even further, from a written reprimand to coaching and counseling. The Union accepted. That evening, Maurer sent several angry texts to one of the Commissioners, accusing him of having an inappropriately close re­lationship with Reese and the Union. Maurer was subsequently placed on a performance improvement plan and ordered to apologize for her conduct. She then delegated her labor relations duties to two of her assistant chiefs.

One of the District’s battalion chiefs announced his retirement ef­fective January 31, 2023. The District scheduled interviews with Reese, Johns, and Killeen on October 25, 2022, with Maurer and three assistants conducting the interviews. Each interviewer would later testify that, although Reese is an excellent captain and would make an excellent battalion chief, Reese ap­peared unprepared for the interview and gave terse, unimpressive answers. By contrast, Killeen was very well-pre­pared, and was ultimately selected to fill the vacancy. The District noted that the retiring battalion chief had a gruff and abrasive management style and wanted to replace him with someone with excellent interpersonal skills, which Killeen demonstrated with his interview answers.

The Union filed an unfair labor practice charge against the District with the state labor board on behalf of Reese, arguing that he was passed over for promotion as a result of his union activity. Its main argument was that Maurer’s conduct in August 2022 revealed anti-union animus, specifically directed as Reese. She was ultimately responsible for selecting the new battal­ion chief, and therefore, she improperly ignored Reese’s qualifications in select­ing Killeen. In evaluating this claim, the labor board explained that first the Union was required to prove a prima facie case of anti-union discrimination, at which point the burden shifts to the District to provide a legitimate, nondis­criminatory reason for selecting Killeen over Reese, at which point the burden shifts back to the Union to prove that the District’s excuse was mere pretext.

First, the Board found that the Union established a prima facie case for discrimination. Reese was clear­ly engaged in protected activity as president of the Union, specifically in his handling the 2022 grievance, and he suffered an adverse employment action when he was not selected for promotion. The Board held that given the intensity of Maurer’s texts, which specifically named Reese, and her role in the promotional process, the Union established a nexus between Reese’s union activity and his non-selection for battalion chief.

However, the District adequately proved that its choice to promote Killeen was nondiscriminatory, because he performed better in the interview process than Reese. The District offered sufficient evidence that it was seeking to replace the retiring battalion chief with someone possessing Killeen’s soft skills. The Union failed to prove that this justification was pretextual for several reasons. Most importantly, the District was able to provide specific examples of the retiring battalion chief’s gruffness, and of Killeen’s interview answers demonstrating a sensitivity to personnel issues. For example, Killeen relayed a story where he was getting dinner with his crew, which was called away to an emergency before the food was served. Killeen wrapped the meals in foil and brought them to his crew so that they would not go hungry. Furthermore, the District was able to prove that although Reese had the best overall score going into the interview process, Killeen’s interview performance was so superior to Reese’s that Killeen’s selection for the promotion was justified. Finally, the interviewers selected Killeen unan­imously, which suggested that their decision was genuine, and not the result of Chief Maurer’s influence.

International Association of Fire Fighters Local 452 v. Clark County Fire District 6, Case 136546-U-23, 2024 WL 1626946 (Wash. Pub. Emp. Rel. Comm., 2024).