SALEM – An Oregon Employment Relations Board judge last week issued a long-awaited recommended ruling in the Unfair Labor Practices Act complaint filed against Grant County over Road Department scheduling and other issues.

Administrative Law Judge Wendy L. Greenwald said the county violated collective bargaining law in five of 18 issues considered in the case. She recommended dismissal of the rest of the complaint in conclusions dated Jan. 12.

The complaint, which dates back to February 2009, was filed by Local 701 of the International Union of Operating Engineers, the union representing Grant County Road Department workers.

Greenwald decided against ordering the county to reimburse the union’s filing fees, noting that such an action is taken only if the complaint or answer was deemed frivolous or “in bad faith.”

“Since we have dismissed some of the Union’s allegations, it is clear that the County’s defenses were not frivolously filed in this case,” she wrote.

Both Grant County Judge Mark Webb and Local 701 representative Rod Osgood were satisfied with the ruling.

Webb said the ruling found in favor of the county on the substantive issues such as the schedule changes that had been contested by the union.

“It think it speaks well for how we handled things overall,” he said.

Osgood had a different take.

“I think it showed the county did break Oregon state law,” he said. While he was disappointed that some issues were found not to violate the contract rights of the workers, he added, “I don’t know how many times the county needs to break state law for it to be seen as a bad thing.”

Osgood also was disappointed that the judge didn’t find that a Sept. 22, 2008 meeting at the Road Department entailed protected union activities. The meeting was the trigger for a number of actions that fueled the complaint.

Osgood said he felt the judge could have ruled differently on some of the issues, but the ruling “still means something.”

Webb said that of the five issues where the union prevailed, a couple involving notices placed in employees’ files have already been taken care of.

He also was pleased that Greenwald accepted the county’s presentation of the historic and economic factors behind its management decisions “as credible.”

In her order, Greenwald noted that the union complaint arose after a series of events that were triggered by “the county’s well-intentioned attempt to improve its employees work performance for reasons completely unrelated to protect activity.

The union has complained that scheduling and other actions were taken to discourage union activity and membership.

“Unfortunately, due to both miscommunication and a lack of communication between the employees and management, matters between the employees and management took a serious downward turn, resulting in this complaint,” Greenwald wrote.

Her proposed order directs the county to post a notice that states the Employment Relations Board has found the county violated the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act by discriminating against workers at the Road Department.

The specific violations relate to written warnings to three employees, threatening statements to employees that may have interfered with their rights, and the placement of workers on a temporary layoff during the ULP hearing.

Another violation stemmed from paying an employee who testified at the ULP hearing for the union differently from ones who testified for the county.

The county is ordered to cease such actions and to “make whole” employees who lost vacation time due to the ULP hearing and the temporary layoff.

Webb said he believes the ruling about the one employee’s pay was based on a misunderstanding, as that employee was not a salaried worker.

The county and the union have 14 days from the date of service of the recommended order to file written objections if they don’t accept the conclusions.

Touching on specific issues in her conclusions, Greenwald found that the county did not violate workers’ rights by:

? Changing to a five-day, eight-hour shift (from a four/10 schedule) in September 2008.

? Assigning three employees to a new schedule for a rock crusher project, also in September 2008.

? Implementing a temporary layoff on Oct. 13, 2008.

? Implementing the 2008-09 snow removal schedule.

? Requiring Local 701 official Rod Osgood to notify Judge Webb before visiting Road Department premises on March 6, 2009.

? Making negative comments about union members.

? Implementing a temporary layoff in January 2009.

? Refusing to allow a woman worker to operate a snow plow.

Among issues where the union made its case, Greenwald found the county in violation when officials:

? Issued a written warning against worker Terry Brandsma regarding a lost oil cap.

? Issued warnings to two employees for riding double on a forklift.

? Made “implied threats” about the employment of four employees.

? Closed the Road Department during the week in which the ULP hearing was held.

Webb said keeping the road department open during the hearing would have been impossible as all of the management employees were required at the hearings, held in Salem.