Employer follows its unsuccessful unit clarification effort to remove employes from unit as supervisors by giving employees additional supervisory responsibility. Commission concludes that although there generally is a duty to bargain over the addition of job duties which are not fairly within the scope of an employees existing job responsibilities, employer need not bargain over the addition of duties which may remove the employee from the bargaining unit if it has legitimate operational needs for the addition. Employees received a wage differential based on supervisory status. Employer withholds a pay increase which would maintain the differential pending outcome of unit clarification in which the employees' supervisory status is being litigated and then does not provide the increase when it loses the unit clarification. Employer would have paid differential retro if it had won the unit clarification.
Commission finds no interference.
Commission acknowledges that County conduct can be viewed as having a reasonable tendency to interfere with resort to the Commission's processes but finds that the County's justification for the delay and ultimate denial is valid business reason for the action which, in turn, warrants a finding of no interference. Employer conduct also does not violate status quo as to wages. Employer was not obligated to bargain over a proposal which would give qualified unit employees the right to job assignments primarily performed by non-unit employees. Right to file petition for review of Examiner's decision is limited to parties to the proceeding. Thus, party seeking to intervene has no independent right to file a petition.