Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
The director shall adopt rules, consistent with the purposes and provisions of this chapter and with the best standards of personnel administration, regarding the basis and procedures to be followed for:
(1) Certification of names for vacancies;
(2) Examinations for all positions in the competitive and noncompetitive service;
(3) Appointments;
(4) Permitting agency heads to delegate the authority to appoint, reduce, dismiss, suspend, or demote employees within their agencies if such agency heads do not have specific statutory authority to so delegate: PROVIDED, That the director may not authorize such delegation to any position lower than the head of a major subdivision of the agency;
(5) Assuring persons who are or have been employed in classified positions before July 1, 1993, will be eligible for employment, reemployment, transfer, and promotion in respect to classified positions covered by this chapter;
(6) Affirmative action in appointment, promotion, transfer, recruitment, training, and career development; development and implementation of affirmative action goals and timetables; and monitoring of progress against those goals and timetables.
The director shall consult with the human rights commission in the development of rules pertaining to affirmative action.
Rules adopted under this section by the director shall provide for local administration and management by the institutions of higher education and related boards, subject to periodic audit and review by the director.
[ 2011 1st sp.s. c 43 s 409. Prior: 2002 c 371 s 906; 2002 c 354 s 203; 2002 c 354 s 202; 2002 c 110 s 1; 1999 c 297 s 3; 1996 c 319 s 2; 1995 2nd sp.s. c 18 s 911; prior: 1993 sp.s. c 24 s 913; 1993 c 281 s 27; 1990 c 60 s 103; prior: 1985 c 461 s 2; 1985 c 365 s 5; 1983 1st ex.s. c 75 s 5; 1982 1st ex.s. c 53 s 4; prior: 1982 c 79 s 1; 1981 c 311 s 18; 1980 c 118 s 3; 1979 c 151 s 57; 1977 ex.s. c 152 s 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 75 s 1; 1973 c 154 s 1; 1971 ex.s. c 19 s 2; 1967 ex.s. c 108 s 13; 1961 c 1 s 15 (Initiative Measure No. 207, approved November 8, 1960).]
Notes:
Effective date—Purpose—2011 1st sp.s. c 43: See notes following RCW 43.19.003.
Severability—Effective date—2002 c 371: See notes following RCW 9.46.100.
Short title—2002 c 354: See RCW 41.80.907.
Findings—1999 c 297: See note following RCW 43.03.125.
Severability—Effective date—1995 2nd sp.s. c 18: See notes following RCW 19.118.110.
Severability—Effective dates—1993 sp.s. c 24: See notes following RCW 28A.310.020.
Effective date—1993 c 281: See note following RCW 41.06.022.
Severability—Subheadings not law—1990 c 60: See notes following RCW 41.06.070.
Severability—1985 c 461: See note following RCW 41.06.020.
Severability—1982 1st ex.s. c 53: See note following RCW 41.06.020.
Severability—1980 c 118: See note following RCW 41.06.010.
Severability—1977 ex.s. c 152: "If any provision of this 1977 amendatory act, or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act, or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1977 ex.s. c 152 s 14.]
Effective date—1973 1st ex.s. c 75: "This 1973 amendatory act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect midnight June 6, 1973." [ 1973 1st ex.s. c 75 s 3.]
Public employees' collective bargaining: Chapter 41.56 RCW.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1963–2025 · leading case: Ass'n of Capitol Powerhouse Engineers v. State
Ass'n of Capitol Powerhouse Engineers v. State (1977)
“Plaintiff Association of Capitol Powerhouse Engineers, a state employee organization, attacks the constitutionality of the agency shop provisions of RCW 41.06.150, as amended in 1973, on behalf of six of its members.”
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle (2004)
“06 RCW to now include the rule of six, see RCW 41.06.150, the legislature has not once revised the “rule of one” embedded in RCW 41.”
Ortblad v. State (1975)
“” RCW 41.06.150. 1 Employees are given a right to participate in the development and administration of personnel policies, including “pay plans.”
Green River Community College v. Higher Education Personnel Board (1980)
“100 and RCW 41.06.150, without reference to the mandatory arbitration rules promulgated under the respective sections.”
Schatz v. Department of Social & Health Services (2013)
“There, the employees argued that they had been deprived of equal pay for equal work and sought an order requiring the Personnel Resources Board to adopt a single salary schedule for employees in general government and higher education under former RCW 41.06.150(14) (2002). 10…”
City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387 (1980)
“16, and originally codified at RCW 41.06.150, provided in part that the State Personnel Board *678 shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations, .”
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections (2003)
“RCW 41.06.150 and RCW 41.06.160 require DOP to adopt and recommend to the governor and the director of financial management salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates.”
Wilson v. Nord (1979)
“Subsection 15 of RCW 41.06.150 allows the Board to adopt rules and procedures regarding reallocations.”
Washington Public Employees Ass'n v. Personnel Resources Board (2005)
“Civil Service Law ¶15 The Employees argue that RCW 41.06.150(14) 1 requires the Personnel Resources Board to adopt a single state salary schedule to “reflect the prevailing rates in Washington state private industries” and other governmental units.”
Washington Federation of State Employees v. State Personnel Board (1989)
“The statute provides: [T]he court shall declare the rule invalid only if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or was adopted without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.”
Rosso v. State Personnel Board (1966)
“Applying this analysis to the facts before this court, it is the court's responsibility to determine whether the rules *25 promulgated in Article 20 exceed the authority given to the personnel board under RCW 41.06.150, and to decide whether they are contrary to the general…”
School Comm. of Greenfield v. Greenfield Educ. Ass'n (1982)
“150 , as amended in 1973, is differently phrased and that the Washington court relied on a factual finding that there was a “publicized, ‘readily accessible’ procedure for refund of monies which would otherwise be used for political purposes to which an employee objects.” Id. at…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(1) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(10) — 1 case
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(11) — 1 case
Grant v. Spellman (1981)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(12) — 2 cases
Green River Community College v. Higher Education Personnel Board (1980)
“100 and RCW 41.06.150, without reference to the mandatory arbitration rules promulgated under the respective sections.”
City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387 (1980)
“16, and originally codified at RCW 41.06.150, provided in part that the State Personnel Board *678 shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations, .”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(13) — 3 cases
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(14) — 5 cases
Schatz v. Department of Social & Health Services (2013)
“There, the employees argued that they had been deprived of equal pay for equal work and sought an order requiring the Personnel Resources Board to adopt a single salary schedule for employees in general government and higher education under former RCW 41.06.150(14) (2002). 10…”
Washington Public Employees Ass'n v. Personnel Resources Board (2005)
“Civil Service Law ¶15 The Employees argue that RCW 41.06.150(14) 1 requires the Personnel Resources Board to adopt a single state salary schedule to “reflect the prevailing rates in Washington state private industries” and other governmental units.”
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections (2003)
“RCW 41.06.150 and RCW 41.06.160 require DOP to adopt and recommend to the governor and the director of financial management salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates.”
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL NO. 313 v. Department of Corrections (2003)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(15) — 3 cases
Wfse v. Ofm (1993)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(17) — 4 cases
Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections (2003)
“RCW 41.06.150 and RCW 41.06.160 require DOP to adopt and recommend to the governor and the director of financial management salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates.”
Wfse v. Ofm (1993)
TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSE AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL NO. 313 v. Department of Corrections (2003)
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(2) — 5 cases
Seattle Police Officers Guild v. City of Seattle (2004)
“06 RCW to now include the rule of six, see RCW 41.06.150, the legislature has not once revised the “rule of one” embedded in RCW 41.”
Wilson v. Nord (1979)
“Subsection 15 of RCW 41.06.150 allows the Board to adopt rules and procedures regarding reallocations.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.06.150(7) — 1 case
Washington Public Employees Ass'n v. Personnel Resources Board (2005)
“Civil Service Law ¶15 The Employees argue that RCW 41.06.150(14) 1 requires the Personnel Resources Board to adopt a single state salary schedule to “reflect the prevailing rates in Washington state private industries” and other governmental units.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.