Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.58.005 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) It is the intent of the legislature by the adoption of chapter 296, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess. to provide, in the area of public employment, for the more uniform and impartial (a) adjustment and settlement of complaints, grievances, and disputes arising out of employer-employee relations and, (b) selection and certification of bargaining representatives by transferring jurisdiction of such matters to the public employment relations commission from other boards and commissions. It is further the intent of the legislature, by such transfer, to achieve more efficient and expert administration of public labor relations administration and to thereby ensure the public of quality public services.

(2) Nothing contained in chapter 296, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess. shall be construed to alter any existing collective bargaining unit or the provisions of any existing bargaining agreement.

(3) Nothing contained in chapter 296, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess. shall be construed to alter any power or authority regarding the scope of collective bargaining in the employment areas affected by chapter 296, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess., but chapter 296, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess. shall be construed as transferring existing jurisdiction and authority to the public employment relations commission.

(4) Nothing contained in chapter 296, Laws of 1975 1st ex. sess. shall be construed to prohibit the consideration or adjustment of complaints or grievances by the public employer.

[ 1975 1st ex.s. c 296 s 1.]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1978–2016 · leading case: Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “Here, given the authority granted PERC and express legislative recognition of PERC’s expertise in RCW 41.58.005(1), we do not believe that the legislature had in mind that only a court action could vindicate the public policy stated in RCW 49.”

City of Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 818 P.2d 1076 (Wash. 1991). “41 RCW 41.58.005(1), .010(2). 42 Public Empl.”

Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). · cites it 2× “Here, given the authority granted PERC and express legislative recognition of PERC's expertise in RCW 41.58.005(1), we do not believe that the legislature had in mind that only a court action could vindicate the public policy stated in RCW 49.”

City of Bellevue v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 1604, 831 P.2d 738 (Wash. 1992). “There is no statutory requirement that the members of the arbitration panel have any expertise in labor relations.”

Mun. of Metro. Seattle v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 826 P.2d 158 (Wash. 1992). “RCW 41.58.005. In addition to other duties, PERC is empowered and directed to prevent any unfair labor practice and to issue appropriate remedial orders; .”

Kitsap Co & Kitsap Co Sheriff, Resps v. Kitsap Co Corr. Officers Guild & Perc, 193 Wash. App. 40 (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The parties submitted additional evidence and briefing. In August 2014, the trial court again ruled in favor of the county.”

Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 750 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1988). “1327 (enacting RCW 41.58.005) (act creating PERC expressly does not expand existing jurisdiction of RCW 41.”

Washington State Ferries v. Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, 584 P.2d 397 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “010(2); RCW 41.58.005. 2 For purposes of this case, it is immaterial that the condemnation settlement took place nearly 1 year after MEC's order.”

Pasco Hous. Auth. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 991 P.2d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.58.005(1), (3); In re Case E-368, 65 Wn.”

Off. of the Governor v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 334 P.3d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “We hold that PERC did not exceed its authority under RCW 41.58.005 and 41.56.060 when it included the MAM program interpreters in the statewide bargaining unit of interpreters.”

State Of Wa-Off. Of The Governor v. Wa Fed'n Of State Employees (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “We hold that PERC did not exceed its authority under RCW 41.58.005 and 41.56.060 when it included the MAM program interpreters in the statewide bargaining unit of interpreters.”

Pud 1 v. Perc, 750 P.2d 1240 (Wash. 1988). “1327 (enacting RCW 41.58.005) (act creating PERC expressly does not expand existing jurisdiction of RCW 41.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.58.005(1) — 8 cases

Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist. No. 1, 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). “Here, given the authority granted PERC and express legislative recognition of PERC’s expertise in RCW 41.58.005(1), we do not believe that the legislature had in mind that only a court action could vindicate the public policy stated in RCW 49.”

City of Yakima v. Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, 818 P.2d 1076 (Wash. 1991). “41 RCW 41.58.005(1), .010(2). 42 Public Empl.”

Christensen v. Grant Cnty. Hosp. Dist., 96 P.3d 957 (Wash. 2004). “Here, given the authority granted PERC and express legislative recognition of PERC's expertise in RCW 41.58.005(1), we do not believe that the legislature had in mind that only a court action could vindicate the public policy stated in RCW 49.”

— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.58.005(3) — 1 case

Pasco Hous. Auth. v. Pub. Emp. Relations Comm'n, 991 P.2d 1177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000). “RCW 41.58.005(1), (3); In re Case E-368, 65 Wn.”

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.