Teamsters Local 117, which represents Washington Department of Corrections (DOC) officers responsible for transporting incarcerated individuals to medical appointments, court hearings, funerals, and other off-site activities, filed an unfair labor practice charge after DOC implemented “Verizon Reveal” software without bargaining with the Union. DOC had used GPS tracking devices on transport vehicles since at least 2011, and the parties previously bargained over that system in 2012. As part of that bargaining, DOC agreed the GPS trackers would not be used as “the only evidence to support a disciplinary action” or as “a surveillance tool for the sole purpose of monitoring employees for disciplinary purposes.”
In 2024, the DOC began using Verizon Reveal to enhance its existing GPS system. The software allowed supervisors to monitor a vehicle’s “real-time location, speed, and stops” and was programmed to send an automatic alert when a DOC vehicle exceeded the speed limit by more than 15 miles per hour. Lieutenant Kenneth Bratten sometimes initiated investigations after receiving those alerts, including requiring drivers to complete incident reports acknowledging whether they had been speeding. At least two employees received written reprimands after Verizon Reveal reported speeds 19 and 30 miles per hour over the limit. The Union alleged that DOC unlawfully implemented “a GPS Tracking Alert System as well as the associated practices and procedures” without first bargaining.
The Hearing Examiner dismissed the complaint, concluding that the dispute was controlled by a state statute, RCW 41.80.040, which provides that covered public employers “shall not bargain over” management rights including “the use of technology.” The Hearing Examiner emphasized that the statutory language was dispositive, because “[t]he use of new software to enhance the functionality of a GPS tracking system is clearly ‘the use of technology.’”
The Hearing Examiner reasoned that once the subject fell within that statutory category, the employer lacked both a duty and authority to negotiate. As the decision explained, “the employer had no obligation, or even legal authority, to bargain the subject with the [Union].” The Hearing Examiner therefore concluded that the Union could not establish an unlawful refusal to bargain as a matter of law.
The Hearing Examiner also rejected the Union’s reliance on prior bargaining over GPS trackers. Although the parties had previously negotiated restrictions on how the information obtained from a GPS software tool could be used to discipline workers, the Hearing Examiner distinguished that question from DOC’s decision to use a new software tool at all.
The Hearing Examiner stressed that the case addressed only whether DOC had a duty to bargain before implementing Verizon Reveal. “To what extent the use of the Verizon Reveal technology can form the basis for discipline under a just cause provision,” the examiner explained, “is beyond the scope of this case, and is a matter for an arbitrator to decide under the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.”
Teamsters Local 117 v. Washington State Department of Corrections, Decision 14309-PSRA, 2026 WL 889711 (Wash. Pub. Emp. Rel. Comm’n Mar. 19, 2026).