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

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.56.905 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
The provisions of this chapter are intended to be additional to other remedies and shall be liberally construed to accomplish their purpose. Except as provided in RCW 53.18.015, 41.58.070, 43.101.095, and 43.101.135, if any provision of this chapter conflicts with any other statute, ordinance, rule or regulation of any public employer, the provisions of this chapter shall control.
[ 2021 c 323 s 23; 2021 c 13 s 4; 1983 c 287 s 5; 1973 c 131 s 10.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: This section was amended by 2021 c 13 s 4 and by 2021 c 323 s 23, each without reference to the other. Both amendments are incorporated in the publication of this section under RCW 1.12.025(2). For rule of construction, see RCW 1.12.025(1).
Severability—1983 c 287: See note following RCW 41.56.521.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2025 · leading case: City of Pasco v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 833 P.2d 381 (Wash. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Pasco v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 833 P.2d 381 (Wash. 1992). · cites it 8× “The purpose of the Public Employees' Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), RCW 41.56, is set out in RCW 41.”
Peninsula Sch. Dist. No. 401 v. Pub. Sch. Employees, 924 P.2d 13 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 5× “” RCW 41.56.905. This statutory provision thus acknowledges that the PECBA may be inconsistent with other statutes, and provides that conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the dominance of the PECBA.”
Piel v. City of Fed. Way, 306 P.3d 879 (Wash. 2013). · cites it 4× “PERC contains such a provision, RCW 41.56.905, which states, “The provisions of this chapter are intended to be additional to other remedies and shall be liberally construed to accomplish their purpose.”
City of Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 818 P.2d 1076 (Wash. 1991). · cites it 3× “RCW 41.56.905. The specific section of the statute to be examined in the case before us provides: A public employer shall have the authority to engage in collective bargaining with the exclusive bargaining representative and no public employer shall refuse to engage in…”
Shoreline Cmty. Coll. Dist. No. 7 v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 842 P.2d 938 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 2× “52 states that one of the purposes of the chapter is to establish "orderly procedures governing the relationship between the employees and their employers which procedures are designed to meet the special requirements and needs of public employment in higher education.”
Rose v. Erickson, 721 P.2d 969 (Wash. 1986). · cites it 4× “The above dicta is not controlling in that Clallam County involved a conflict between RCW 41.”
Peninsula Sch. Dist. v. Pub. Sch. Emp., 924 P.2d 13 (Wash. 1996). · cites it 5× “" RCW 41.56.905. This statutory provision thus acknowledges that the PECBA may be inconsistent with other statutes, and provides that conflicts are to be resolved in favor of the dominance of the PECBA.”
Rose v. Anderson Hay & Grain Co., 358 P.3d 1139 (Wash. 2015). “¶52 RCW 41.56.905 states that PERC’s remedies were intended to be additional to other remedies.”
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 332 P.3d 1085 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “at 617 (quoting RCW 41.56.905). In those circumstances, the Piel court recognized a private common law tort remedy as necessary to fully vindicate public policy.”
Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc., 359 P.3d 746 (Wash. 2015). “2d at 617 (quoting RCW 41.56.905). Unlike the statute in Piel , nothing in SOX states that the remedy in the statute is intended to be additional to other remedies.”
City of Spokane v. Spokane Police Guild, 553 P.2d 1316 (Wash. 1976). “The legislature in that act not only made such a delegation lawful and mandatory 1 by enactment of this law, but provided in RCW 41.56.905 that the provisions of the act “shall control” in case of conflict with “any other statute, ordinance, rule or regulation of any public…”
State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Found. v. Washington Educ. Ass'n, 999 P.2d 602 (Wash. 2000). “With the exception of port district employees, RCW 41.56.905 mandates that the provisions of RCW 41.”
Show all 28 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.