Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.56
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.56.040 (2026)

Right of employees to organize and designate representatives without interference

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
No public employer, or other person, shall directly or indirectly, interfere with, restrain, coerce, or discriminate against any public employee or group of public employees in the free exercise of their right to organize and designate representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining, or in the free exercise of any other right under this chapter.
[ 1967 ex.s. c 108 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1972–2026 · leading case: Local 2916, IAFF v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 907 P.2d 1204 (Wash. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Local 2916, IAFF v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 907 P.2d 1204 (Wash. 1995). · cites it 6× “040 provides that public employees have the right to be free of interference, restraint, coercion, or discrimination in their efforts to "organize and designate representatives of their own choosing for the purpose of collective bargaining,” the statute makes no reference to…”
SEIU 775 v. Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., 396 P.3d 369 (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× ““Other Statute” Exemption ¶15 SEIU argues that two provisions of the PECBA, RCW 41.56.040 and RCW 41.56.140, together provide an “other statute” exemption under the PRA.”
Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 842 P.2d 938 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “See RCW 41.56.040. Pursuant to such considerations, the New York court in Antinore v.”
Pub. Employees Relations v. City of Vancouver, 33 P.3d 74 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.56.040. [6] Specifically, RCW 41.56.”
City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 325 P.3d 213 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “The complaint alleged that the City had “interfered with, restrained, coerced and discriminated against Officer Martin in violation of RCW 41.56.040 and RCW 41.56.140(1)” by denying him the motorcycle unit assignment.”
City of Vancouver v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 107 Wash. App. 694 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.56.040. 6 Specifically, RCW 41.56.”
Nucleonics All. v. Washington Pub. Power Supply Sys., 677 P.2d 108 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.56.040, 41.56.140(1), (2). PERC was established to decide the appropriate bargaining unit when there is a disagreement between the *32 public employer and employees regarding the selection of a bargaining representative.”
City of Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 818 P.2d 1076 (Wash. 1991). “13 RCW 41.56.040. 14 RCW 41.56.100. 15 RCW 41.”
Ass'n v. City, 222 P.3d 1217 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “14, 1999); see RCW 41.56.040 ("No public employer or other person shall .”
Yakima Police Patrolmen's Ass'n v. City of Yakima, 153 Wash. App. 541 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “14, 1999); see RCW 41.56.040 (“No public employer, or other person, shall .”
City of Seattle v. Auto Sheet Metal Workers Local 387, 620 P.2d 119 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “030(2); RCW 41.56.040. Public employers, in most instances, are required to engage in collective bargaining with the employees' exclusive bargaining representatives.”
Vancouver Sch. Dist. No. 37 v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, Local 92, 906 P.2d 946 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “[27] Collective bargaining is defined as "the performance of the mutual obligations of the public employer and the exclusive bargaining representative to meet at reasonable times, to confer and negotiate in good faith, and to execute a written agreement with respect to grievance…”
Show all 26 citing cases →
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.