Jasmine Johnson-Purnell is a Licensed Practical Nurse employed by the Washington State Department of Corrections at the Washington Corrections Center in Shelton. She was part of a nonsupervisory unit represented by Teamsters Local 117. In January 2024, Johnson-Purnell was assigned new medication cart duties by her supervisor, Mandy Venable. Johnson-Purnell, concerned about her new workload – she was now expected to administer medication to four living units in eight hours – raised concerns to a union shop steward, as well as to Venable.
According to Johnson-Purnell, this set off a campaign of retaliation, micromanagement and hostility from Venable.
On January 21, 2024, Johnson-Purnell filed a workplace incident report that described the unfair treatment by Venable, sending a copy to her steward as well. Following the submission of the report, Venable complained that “Johnson-Purnell was working too efficiently” compared to other nurses under Venable’s supervision, reflecting her stated belief that Johnson-Purnell was cutting corners. Pressed for detail, Venable did not specify what corners were being cut.
On March 11, 2024, Venable called Johnson-Purnell into a supervisory conference and presented her with a “letter of expectation” stating that Johnson-Purnell was to follow policy in its entirety.
Again, the alleged policy violations were unspecified, explained only by Venable’s assertion that nurses besides Johnson-Purnell were taking longer to complete their medical cart rounds. The next day, Venable observed Johnson-Purnell’s rounds, as part of a “time trial.”
At the end of the month, Venable assigned yet more duties to Johnson-Purnell. When Johnson-Purnell called to voice her concerns, Venable hung up and refused to speak with her the rest of the day. Instead, she scheduled a supervisory conference for the following week. Johnson-Purnell informed Venable that she would like a union representative to attend the supervisory conference.
“On April 9, 2024, Venable informed Johnson-Purnell that the supervisory conference would occur on April 10, 2024, at 2:00 p.m. Venable also informed Johnson-Purnell that Venable expected Johnson-Purnell to attend the supervisory conference the next day with or without a union representative. Johnson-Purnell was able to secure a union representative to attend the meeting with her. On April 10, 2024, Venable canceled the meeting.”
About three weeks later, Venable emailed Johnson-Purnell a performance evaluation, indicating that Johnson-Purnell was deficient in 8 out of 10 categories, and once again, non-specifically alleging that she was “out of compliance with policy and procedure.” Added to the pile was an allegation of insubordination.
The Union brought two unfair labor practice charges against the Employer, alleging that the Employer discriminated against Johnson-Purnell’s exercise of protected union activities in the form of retaliation via negative performance evaluations and letters of expectation. Further, the Union alleged Johnson-Purnell was deprived of her Weingarten rights.
The Unfair Labor Practice Administrator for the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission dismissed both charges. With respect to the discrimination charge, the Administrator held that the Union’s complaint “lacks facts demonstrating that the employer deprived the employee of some ascertainable right, benefit, or status.” Prior adjudications of discrimination claims involving negative performance reviews that were alleged to be retaliatory had concluded similarly: that there was no evidence the comments constituted discipline or impacted the employee’s employment in the future. The Union had been given an opportunity to amend the complaint but had failed to do so.
The Weingarten charge was dismissed because Johnson-Purnell was never compelled “to attend a meeting that she reasonably believed potential discipline might result from the information obtained during the interview.
“When an employee makes a valid request for union representation, an employer has three options: (1) grant the request, (2) discontinue the interview, or (3) offer the employee the choice of either continuing the interview unrepresented or having no interview at all, thereby foregoing any benefit that the interview might have conferred upon the employee. The facts as pled demonstrated that Venable requested Johnson-Purnell’s presence at an April 10, 2024, meeting and Johnson-Purnell reasonably believed potential discipline might result from the information obtained during the interview. However, the facts also demonstrated that on April 10, 2024, Venable cancelled the meeting. Regardless of whether Johnson-Purnell had requested a Weingarten representative to attend the April 10, 2024, Venable’s decision to cancel that meeting effectively negated Johnson-Purnell’s need for a Weingarten representative and this allegation must be dismissed.”
Teamsters Local 117 v. Washington State Department of Corrections, 2024 WA PERC LEXIS 129 (Wash. PERC 2024).