Wash. Rev. Code » Title 41 · Chapter 41.59
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 41.59.140 (2026)

Unfair labor practices for employer, employee organization, enumerated

✓ 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 shall be an unfair labor practice for an employer:
(a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.59.060;
(b) To dominate or interfere with the formation or administration of any employee organization or contribute financial or other support to it: PROVIDED, That subject to rules and regulations made by the commission pursuant to RCW 41.59.110, an employer shall not be prohibited from permitting employees to confer with it or its representatives or agents during working hours without loss of time or pay;
(c) To encourage or discourage membership in any employee organization by discrimination in regard to hire, tenure of employment or any term or condition of employment, but nothing contained in this subsection shall prevent an employer from requiring, as a condition of continued employment, payment of periodic dues and fees uniformly required to an exclusive bargaining representative pursuant to *RCW 41.59.100;
(d) To discharge or otherwise discriminate against an employee because he or she has filed charges or given testimony under **this chapter;
(e) To refuse to bargain collectively with the representatives of its employees.
(2) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employee organization:
(a) To restrain or coerce (i) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.59.060: PROVIDED, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of an employee organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein; or (ii) an employer in the selection of his or her representatives for the purposes of collective bargaining or the adjustment of grievances;
(b) To cause or attempt to cause an employer to discriminate against an employee in violation of subsection (1)(c) of this section;
(c) To refuse to bargain collectively with an employer, provided it is the representative of its employees subject to RCW 41.59.090.
(3) The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof to the public, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of **this chapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.
[ 2012 c 117 s 93; 1975 1st ex.s. c 288 s 15.]

Notes:

Reviser's note: *(1) RCW 41.59.100 was repealed by 2019 c 230 s 25.
**(2) Session law [1975 1st ex.s. c 288 s 15] language here reads "this act" or "this 1975 act"; for codification of 1975 1st ex.s. c 288, see Codification Tables.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Graham v. Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417, 662 P.2d 38 (Wash. 1983).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Graham v. Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417, 662 P.2d 38 (Wash. 1983). · cites it 22× “Do the provisions granting release time constitute an unfair labor practice pursuant to RCW 41.59.140? We answer this question in the negative.”
State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Found. v. Washington Educ. Ass'n, 999 P.2d 602 (Wash. 2000). “However, if the same employer inquires into a labor organization’s use of funds in an effort to verify whether dues are used for political contributions, the employer may well run afoul of RCW 41.59.140(l)(b). Looming all the time is the potential for penalties under RCW 42.”
Wright v. Terrell, 145 P.3d 1230 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “150(1) (1981), which provided: "The commission is empowered to prevent any person from engaging in any unfair labor practice as defined in RCW 41.59.140. This power shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by…”
DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 117 Wash. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “RCW 41.59.140(1) states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.”
Wright v. Terrell, 135 Wash. App. 722 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “150(1) (1975), which provided: “The commission is empowered to prevent an per *730 son from engaging in any unfair labor practice as defined in RCW 41.59.140. This power shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by…”
Freedom Found. v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 925, 423 P.3d 849 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “, RCW 41.59.140; RCW 41.80.110. UW is prohibited from controlling or directing employees' union activity.”
DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 69 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 2× “[2] RCW 41.59.140(1) states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.”
Evergreen Freedom Found. v. EDUC. ASS'N, 999 P.2d 602 (Wash. 2000). · cites it 2× “Under RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to *620 interfere with the administration of any employee organization.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.59.140(1) — 3 cases
State Ex Rel. Graham v. Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417, 662 P.2d 38 (Wash. 1983). “Do the provisions granting release time constitute an unfair labor practice pursuant to RCW 41.59.140? We answer this question in the negative.”
DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 117 Wash. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 41.59.140(1) states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.”
DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 69 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[2] RCW 41.59.140(1) states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.59.140(1)(a) — 1 case
DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 69 P.3d 877 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “[2] RCW 41.59.140(1) states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.59.140(1)(b) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Graham v. Northshore Sch. Dist. No. 417, 662 P.2d 38 (Wash. 1983). “Do the provisions granting release time constitute an unfair labor practice pursuant to RCW 41.59.140? We answer this question in the negative.”
Evergreen Freedom Found. v. EDUC. ASS'N, 999 P.2d 602 (Wash. 2000). “Under RCW 41.59.140(1)(b), it is an unfair labor practice for an employer to *620 interfere with the administration of any employee organization.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.59.140(l)(a) — 1 case
DeLacey v. Clover Park Sch. Dist., 117 Wash. App. 291 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003). “RCW 41.59.140(1) states that it is an unfair labor practice for an employer: (a) To interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in RCW 41.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 41.59.140(l)(b) — 1 case
State ex rel. Evergreen Freedom Found. v. Washington Educ. Ass'n, 999 P.2d 602 (Wash. 2000). “However, if the same employer inquires into a labor organization’s use of funds in an effort to verify whether dues are used for political contributions, the employer may well run afoul of RCW 41.59.140(l)(b). Looming all the time is the potential for penalties under RCW 42.”
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.