IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION THREE

TEAMSTER’S LOCAL 839,

Respondent,

v.

FRANKLIN COUNTY, A 

WASHINGTON MUNICIPAL ENTITY, 

CLINT DIDIER, ROCKY MULLEN, 

BRAD PECK, IN THEIR OFFICIAL 

CAPACITIES AS MEMBERS OF THE 

BOARD OF COUNTY 

COMMISSIONERS FOR FRANKLIN 

COUNTY, AND JAMES D. RAYMOND, 

IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

FRANKLIN COUNTY SHERIFF,

Petitioners.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 39814-5-III

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

STAAB, A.C.J. — An arbitrator found that new rules, issued by the Franklin 

County Sheriff that restricted the union’s ability to contact union employees in the jail, 

violated the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the Teamsters Local 839 

(Union). The arbitrator ordered the Sheriff to rescind the rules. The Union then filed a 

complaint in superior court to enforce the arbitrator’s decision. Ultimately, the superior 

court granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment and ordered Franklin County to 

FILED

JUNE 27, 2024

In the Office of the Clerk of Court

WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

2

rescind the rules and restore the Union’s ability to meet with its members in the jail. The 

county appeals, arguing that the arbitrator’s award should be overturned because it 

violated public policy and was arbitrary and capricious. We affirm the trial court’s order 

on summary judgment. 

BACKGROUND

“Courts do not review an arbitrator’s factual determinations.” Int’l Union of 

Operating Eng’rs, Local 286 v. Port of Seattle, 176 Wn.2d 712, 716 n.1, 295 P.3d 736 

(2013). Accordingly, the factual background is taken from the arbitrator’s written 

opinion.

Factual Background

“The Union represents a bargaining unit of correction officers, corporals, and 

sergeants who work inside the Franklin County Jail.” Clerk’s Papers (CP) at 7. The 

Union and Franklin County Corrections are parties to a CBA “that was in effect from 

August 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020.” CP at 7. The CBA contained a provision, article 

25.2, allowing the Union’s labor representative to visit employees of the jail to 

investigate grievances:

The Labor Representative of the Association may visit the work location of 

employees covered by this Agreement at any reasonable time for the 

purpose of investigating grievances. Such representative shall limit 

activities during such investigations to matters relating to this Agreement. 

County work hours shall not be used by employees or Association 
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

3

Representatives for the promotion of Association affairs other than stated 

above.

CP at 90.

The labor representative started visiting employees in April 2020. He would call 

ahead of time to inform the commander of his visit. Initially, he went through security 

procedures before entering the jail. However, he eventually did not need to go through 

these procedures and was instead met by someone at the front entrance and then led into 

the jail.

The labor representative generally met with employees in the jail’s offices. He 

met with employees and investigated grievances related to, among other issues, 

“contractual meals for employees working overtime, the overtime sign-up bulletin 

board,” the “method of passing medication to inmates,” and a harassment claim. CP at 

11. He never walked around the jail unattended, and if it was necessary to visit a location 

within the jail, “he was escorted to the master control station to observe the areas of the 

inmates.” CP at 11.

In October 2020, a corporal was called into a meeting with her supervisor where 

“the supervisor threatened the corporal with discipline for insubordination.” CP at 12. 

“The corporal called [the labor representative] for help,” and the labor representative 

“went to the Jail to speak to the Commander.” CP at 12.
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

4

A few days later, the sheriff emailed the labor representative about his meeting 

with the commander, stating that command “staff would no longer respond [to the labor 

representative].” CP at 12. The sheriff further stated: “This developing environment of 

corrections deputies squealing to their union rep when they don’t get their way is coming 

to an end.” CP at 12.

Two weeks later, the labor representative went to the jail to meet with an 

employee and was denied access. He was told he “would have to meet with the 

employee . . . in the Sheriff’s office.” CP at 12. The labor representative was 

subsequently informed “he would no longer be allowed inside the jail facilities and if he 

needed to inspect an area in the jail facility, he would need to be escorted by the Sheriff 

or someone from [human resources]. CP at 12.

Arbitration

The Union filed a grievance alleging a violation of article 25.2 of the CBA with 

the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC). PERC referred the matter to 

arbitration.

An arbitrator was appointed, and a hearing was held during which witnesses 

testified and exhibits were submitted into evidence.

The Union argued that the county’s decision to implement new rules restricting the 

representative’s ability to visit its members was a clear breach of article 25.2 of the CBA. 

In response, the county maintained, among other things, that there was a safety concern 
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

5

in escorting visitors through secure areas because it reduced staffing levels by one or two 

officers when officers were needed to escort the labor representative and created a 

“possibility of illicit contraband entering the facility.” CP at 15.

The arbitrator determined that the county violated article 25.2 of the CBA, finding 

that “work location” meant the jail where the employees actually worked and “any 

reasonable time” meant the work hours of the employees, which was 24 hours a day. CP 

15, 10. The arbitrator also found that the past practices were consistent with the CBA 

and were reasonable. Further, the arbitrator found there were no security concerns 

justifying the county’s unilateral rule change: 

While the Employer cites security concerns, and while security is of utmost 

importance in a Jail, those concerns are unsubstantiated when it comes to 

the [labor representative]. There were no specific instances of any security 

risks being posed or any instances where security was threatened. The 

testimony presented was hypothetical and speculative. Previously the 

Union was never informed of any security issue with [the labor 

representative’s] presence in the Jail. In fact, the Employer allowed a 

change in the way [the labor representative] entered the Jail from the same 

manner as members of the public to later only needing to appear at a door 

to be given entry. This shows how the Employer trusted [the labor 

representative] and how his presence did not pose a safety threat.

CP at 19. The arbitrator accordingly ordered the county to rescind the rules it had issued 

altering the Union’s ability to access the jail and its employees.
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

6

Following the arbitrator’s award, the labor representative attempted to meet with 

an employee, but the commander informed him that he would not be permitted to meet 

with the employee as a grievance had not been filed.

On April 4, 2022, the Union filed a complaint in superior court against Franklin 

County and several named defendants, seeking to enforce and confirm the arbitration 

award.

Meanwhile, on April 28, the county issued a new order concerning access to the 

jail by the labor representative. The new order restricted the location where the labor 

representative could meet employees, added a new restriction of requiring the labor 

representative to notify the commander who he was visiting and when the visit would 

occur, and required the purpose of the meeting to be a grievance already in existence 

rather than a potential grievance.

In July the arbitrator held a second hearing to determine whether the county had 

complied with the arbitrator’s first award. The county argued that it had rescinded the 

rules found to be in conflict with the CBA and complied with the arbitrator’s award. The 

county further maintained that the new rules allowed for the labor representative to meet 

with employees on the secure side of the jail 24 hours a day, consistent with the 

arbitrator’s award. 
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

7

The Union asserted that the award had not been complied with as the previous 

orders had not been rescinded and the labor representative had not been permitted to enter 

the jail to meet with employees.

The arbitrator then issued a second decision on July 28, 2022, finding that the 

county was noncompliant with the initial award. The arbitrator determined that the 

county had not rescinded the rules found to be in violation of article 25.2 of the CBA but 

instead had altered and reissued them in the new order. The arbitrator found that the new 

order restricted the location where the labor representative may meet with employees, 

added a new restriction of notifying the commander who the labor representative was 

visiting and when the meeting would occur, and required the purpose of the meeting to 

concern a grievance already in existence, excluding potential grievances.

Although the arbitrator stated that it was not within her jurisdiction to say whether 

the new rules violated the CBA, she determined the remedy was not implemented as the 

labor representative’s ability to meet with the employees had not been restored to the 

state it existed prior to October 2020, which was the intent of the initial award.

Thereafter, both parties moved for summary judgment in superior court. The 

superior court granted the Union’s motion for summary judgment and thereby denied the 

county’s motion. In accordance with its ruling, the superior court ordered the county to 
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

8

rescind the October 2020 rules and fully restore the Union’s ability to meet with members 

in jail.

The county appeals.

ANALYSIS

Orders on summary judgment are reviewed de novo. Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 

358, 370, 357 P.3d 1080 (2015). Evidence is considered in a light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. Id. Summary judgment is appropriate only if there are no genuine 

issues of “material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

Id. Mere speculation is insufficient to support or defeat a motion for summary judgment. 

Umpqua Bank v. Gunzel, 19 Wn. App. 2d 16, 34, 501 P.3d 177 (2021).

1. ARBITRATOR’S FIRST AWARD

The county argues that the superior court erred in ordering enforcement of the 

arbitrator’s first award, which required the county to rescind its February 2022 rules. The 

county argues that there is a public policy to protect inmates and ensure the security of 

jails, and the arbitrator’s interpretation of the CBA violates this public policy. We 

disagree.

The circumstances in which this court will review an arbitration decision are very 

limited. Kitsap County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild v. Kitsap County, 167 Wn.2d 428, 434, 

219 P.3d 675 (2009). “Reviewing an arbitration decision for mistakes of law or fact 

would call into question the finality of arbitration decisions and undermine alternative 
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

9

dispute resolution.” Id. at 434-35. A broader review could also damage the freedom of 

the parties to contract because it would lead to more frequent intervention where the 

parties have bargained for a binding arbitration agreement. Id. at 435.

However, courts may vacate an arbitration decision where it violates a public 

policy. Id. at 435-36. The public policy in question must be explicit, well defined, and 

dominant and “not simply ‘general considerations of supposed public interests.’” Id. at 

435 (quoting E. Associated Coal Corp. v. United Mine Workers of Am., Dist. 17, 531 U.S. 

57, 62, 121 S. Ct. 462, 148 L. Ed. 2d 354 (2000)). A determination of whether a public 

policy is explicit, well defined, and dominant “must be ‘ascertained by reference to the 

laws and legal precedents and not from general considerations of supposed public 

interests.’” E. Associated, 531 U.S. at 62 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 

W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 766, 103 S. Ct. 2177, 76 L. Ed. 2d 

298 (1983)). 

In reviewing an arbitration award for violation of public policy, this court must 

first examine whether the award implicates an explicit, well defined, and dominant public 

policy. Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 176 Wn.2d at 721-23. If the answer to the first 

inquiry is affirmative, this court must then determine whether the arbitrator’s award 

violates that public policy. Id.
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

10

Here, even if we were to find an explicit, well defined, and dominant public policy 

that protects inmates and the security of the jail, we conclude that the county has failed to 

demonstrate that the arbitrator’s award violated that public policy. 

The county argues that the arbitration award could result in a security risk because 

the Union now believes it has unrestricted access to the secure portions of the jail and this 

unrestricted access could jeopardize the safety of prisoners and staff because it prevents 

the sheriff from providing security to visitors and ignores deference afforded to jail 

officials when it comes to security interests.

Our review of this case is limited to determining whether the superior court’s 

order affirming the arbitrator’s decision violates a public policy. The arbitrator’s 

decision required the county to rescind its rules. Requiring the county to rescind the rules 

simply means that the parties’ rights and duties are governed by the CBA. At oral 

argument, the county acknowledged that it is not challenging the validity of the CBA. 

See Wash. Ct. of Appeals oral argument, Teamsters Local 839 v. Franklin County, et al., 

No. 39814-5-III (April 25, 2024), at 4 min., 25 sec. to 4 min., 50 sec. (on file with court).

At this time, the county’s concerns about possible future actions are not supported 

by the facts. The arbitrator found that the parties’ past practices had not created any 

security issues. Going forward, if the Union insists on unrestricted access that does 

actually cause a safety concern, the county can file a claim. Additionally, the specific 

terms of access to employees in the jail can be renegotiated. 
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

11

The county has not demonstrated that the arbitrator’s first award violated an 

explicit, well-defined, and dominant public policy. 

2. ARBITRATOR’S SECOND AWARD

The county argues that the arbitrator’s second award was arbitrary and capricious 

and therefore should be overturned. The Union maintains that the arbitrary and 

capricious standard does not apply to judicial review of arbitration decisions, and even if 

the standard applies, the county has failed to show that the second award was arbitrary 

and capricious. 

The arbitrary and capricious standard is applied by this court to its review of 

administrative decisions. Clark County Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Int’l Bhd. of Elec. 

Workers Local 125, 150 Wn.2d 237, 246-47, 76 P.3d 248 (2003). The Washington 

Supreme Court has expressly stated that courts do not review the merits of an arbitration 

decision and therefore cannot apply the arbitrary and capricious standard. Id. at 247. 

The county has made no argument supporting its position that an arbitrary and 

capricious standard of review should be applied here. Accordingly, we decline to address 

this argument. See DeHeer v. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 60 Wn.2d 122, 126, 372 P.2d 

193 (1962) (“Where no authorities are cited in support of a proposition, the court is not 

required to search out authorities, but may assume that counsel, after diligent search, has 

found none.”).
No. 39814-5-III

Teamsters Local Union 839 v. Franklin County

12

We affirm the superior court’s order on summary judgment.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040.

_________________________________

Staab, A.C.J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________________

Fearing, J.

_________________________________

Cooney, J.