6. In the private sector, “concerted activities” protected by law also include collective activities of workers for “other assistance or mutual protection” in the event of an injunction in the event of a dispute. Briggs v. Nova Servs., 135 Wn.App. 955, 964, 147 P.3d 616 (2006), aff`d, 166 Wn.2d 794, 213 P.3d 910 (2009). But our national legislator has not explicitly extended the protection of these “concerted activities” to public employees. 15 The Teamsters argue that PERC challenged an error in the provision that national law does not protect “concerted activities.” The clear language of the Washington Law on the Rights of Public Workers explicitly gives workers the right to organize, train, join, help form workers` organizations and bargain collectively. See RCW 41.80.050. Another law prohibits the intervention of public employers in the organization and collective bargaining of public officials.
See RCW 41.56.040. None of these statutes mention “concerted activities.” 11. Teamsters apply a “overwhelming evidence test” when they claim that the recording supports the conclusion that state law protects their emails. Br. of the complainant at 31 (capitalization omitted). However, they do not appear to be valid about the validity of PERC`s findings, but their legal findings that Cherry`s emails were not protected. As noted above, we are reviewing the legal findings of de novo PERC. Pasco Police Officers, 132 Wn.2d to 458. Thus, the Teamsters` “overwhelming evidence” standard does not apply.
8 PERC overturned the auditor`s decision, submitted the letter of formal notice in the personal files of chers, acknowledged the auditor`s findings and conclusions, and gave its own conclusions and conclusions. She discovered, among other things, that Cherry had sent two e-mails to correction centre employees, one informing her of the new Correction Centre victim and her salary, and the other, informing her about the IF project. Perc concluded that neither e-mail was covered by the collective protection of public officials in Chapter 41.80 RCW.4. And she rejected her claim work practice. 12. Teamsters refer to general conclusions which, in their view, are supported by their overwhelming evidence. They note that Cherry has served as an “effective advocate for workers` interests in protected and concerted activities.” Br. of the complainant at 35 years of age. As mentioned above, the Washington law does not protect the “concerted activities” of public employees. The Teamsters also note that staff and management have viewed Cherry as “the union`s hub for communication and distribution of information.” Br.
of the complainant at 35 years of age. Again, the Teamsters do not like the role of union leader to these emails.