Public Employee Rights and Benefits
Definitions for ORS 243.650 to 243.806
See also annotations under ORS 243.711 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
The selection of a fair-share ratification procedure need only be some procedure which reasonably reflects the opinion of the majority of the bargaining unit members. Oregon City Fedn. of Teachers v. Employe Relations Bd., 23 Or App 540, 543 P2d 297 (1975)
A court's review of the Employment Relations Board's decision as to what is a mandatory subject for collective bargaining is limited to determining whether the decision is lawful in substance and is supported by substantial evidence. Springfield Educ. Assn. v. Springfield Sch. Dist. 19, 24 Or App 751, 547 P2d 647 (1976), as modified by 25 Or App 407, 549 P2d 1141 (1976)
Substitute teachers are public employes within definition of this section. Eugene School District v. Substitute Teacher Organization, 31 Or App 1255, 572 P2d 650 (1977)
In a proceeding before the Employment Relations Board to certify a bargaining unit, an order by the board denying a motion to dismiss such a proceeding on the ground that the employer is not a "public employer" and holding that it is, to the contrary, a "public employer," is not a "final order" so as to be appealable under the terms of ORS 183.480. Lane Council of Governments v. Lane Council of Governments Employes Association, 277 Or 631, 561 P2d 1012 (1977), on reconsideration 278 Or 335, 563 P2d 729 (1977)
Notwithstanding that it was improper for public employer to classify employe as "supervisory employe," and thus place him on list of positions excluded from collective bargaining, without first giving notice to union as required by bargaining agreement, employe was not then entitled to disobey order not to attend union meeting, but was required to remain at job and then file grievance under procedure provided by bargaining agreement. Whitney v. Employment Division, 280 Or 35, 569 P2d 1078 (1977)
Sheriff is "public employer" within meaning of this section. Hockema v. OSEA, 34 Or App 527, 579 P2d 282 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
Where collective bargaining agreement included provision requiring fair share payments-in-lieu-of-dues, and it was intent of parties to agreement that vote approving of agreement would constitute ratification of fair share requirement, subsequent judicial decision mandating separate vote for ratification of fair share provision was not retroactive and did not require repayment of previously withheld fair share payments. Oregon City Federation of Teachers v. OCEA, 36 Or App 27, 584 P2d 303 (1978)
Collective bargaining agreement requiring payments of only those nonunion members who had been union members during term of agreement but had dropped out of union was not fair share agreement within meaning of this section. Stines v. OSEA, 287 Or 643, 601 P2d 799 (1979)
Although teachers' summer vacation was mandatory bargaining subject, scheduling summer vacation and teachers' "workdays" were permissive bargaining subjects. Eugene Education Assn. v. Eugene School Dist., 46 Or App 733, 613 P2d 79 (1980)
Determination of whether certain aspects of public schoolteacher evaluations were "conditions of employment" and therefore employment relations subject to mandatory collective bargaining was properly made by Employment Relations Board in exercise of interpretive rather than legislative authority as statute embodies complete expression of legislative policy not subject to refinement by ERB. Springfield Educ. Assn. v. Springfield School Dist., 290 Or 217, 621 P2d 547 (1980)
Firefighters' safety proposal was mandatory subject for bargaining where ERB found safety is of "like character" to statutory examples of employment relations and firefighters proved that preponderant purpose of specific language of proposal was to protect employes. International Assoc. of Firefighters, Local 314 v. City of Salem, 68 Or App 793, 684 P2d 605 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Employment Relations Board has authority to determine propriety of payment-in-lieu-of-dues amount agreed upon by public employer and exclusive representative of employees. Carlson v. AFSCME, 73 Or App 755, 700 P2d 260 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
Prohibition in ORS 260.432 against requiring public employee to support political cause does not supersede right of exclusive representative of employees to collect payment-in-lieu-of-dues to support political position affecting rights of represented employees. Carlson v. AFSCME, 73 Or App 755, 700 P2d 260 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
When "fair share" provision exempts from its operation certain state agencies, but is otherwise in all respects fair share agreement, it is invalid under this section because it does not require contribution by all nonunion members of bargaining unit. Stevens v. OPEU, 82 Or App 264, 728 P2d 97 (1986), Sup Ct review denied
Because legislature explicitly included "matters concerning...vacations" within definition of "employment relations" in this section, Employment Relations Board erred in interpreting "employment relations" to include only those vacation proposals that affect "employment conditions" to a greater extent than "management rights." Portland Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Portland, 305 Or 275, 751 P2d 770 (1988)
City of Salem's reserve police officer program involved "matters concerning direct or indirect monetary benefits" within meaning of "employment relations." Salem Police Employees Union v. City of Salem, 308 Or 383, 781 P2d 335 (1989)
Collective bargaining agreement which required continuing payments to all employees except for those working less than 15 hours per week was "fair share" agreement. Bates v. Portland Federation of Teachers, 106 Or App 221, 807 P2d 306 (1991)
Where union collected "fair share" payments from nonunion public employees without complying with safeguards instituted to protect employees' rights of free speech and association, restitution was appropriate remedy. Elvin v. OPEU, 313 Or 165, 832 P2d 36 (1992)
Employment Relations Board misinterpreted "employment relations" by treating workload as if workload were same as five enumerated items in this section. Tualatin Valley Bargaining v. Tigard School Dist., 314 Or 274, 840 P2d 657 (1992)
Whether "other conditions of employment" includes proposal depends on specific facts of each case. Tualatin Valley Bargaining v. Tigard School Dist., 314 Or 274, 840 P2d 657 (1992)
Determination whether subject has greater impact on management's prerogative than on wages, hours or other terms is irrelevant for matter specifically listed as being subject of "employment relations." Eugene Police Employees' Association v. City of Eugene, 157 Or App 341, 972 P2d 1191 (1998), Sup Ct review denied
"Academically licensed" refers to positions requiring academic training and involving provision of direct professional service to students, whether or not requiring formal licensing. Linn-Benton-Lincoln Education Association v. Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD, 163 Or App 558, 989 P2d 25 (1999)
Where change in minimum qualifications necessary for position has impact on direct or indirect monetary benefits, impact of change in minimum qualifications is subject to mandatory bargaining. Beaverton Police Association v. City of Beaverton, 194 Or App 531, 95 P3d 1160 (2004)
Where proposal for required employee training courses includes some courses that involve safety issues but not all courses involve safety issues, proposal does not involve a "safety issue" under subsection (7) of this section because it is not reasonably understood, on its face, to directly address a matter related to on-the-job safety of employees. Multnomah County Corrections Deputy Association v. Multnomah County, 257 Or App 713, 308 P3d 230 (2013)
"Reasonable belief" standard is proper standard for determining which individuals constitute "public employer representative" under this section. Therefore, when employees of public employer reasonably believe that individual acted on behalf of public employer in committing unfair labor practice, that individual constitutes "public employer representative" under this section such that employer may be held liable for individual's conduct under ORS 243.672. AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon, 360 Or 809, 388 P3d 1028 (2017)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
Right of a nonlawyer union business agent to represent a member before the Public Employe Relations Board, (1972) Vol 35, p 1088; American Association of University Professors as a labor organization, (1972) Vol 35, p 1105; seniority as a related economic issue, (1972) Vol 35, p 1134; Retirement benefit credit for unused sick leave, request by school district, (1973) Vol 36, p 665; uniform collective bargaining for state employes in same class of position, (1978) Vol 38, p 1694; permissible payment which may be required from nonmembers with respect to Fair Share Agreements, (1978) Vol 38, p 1855
Law Review Citations
28 WLR 259 (1992); 32 WLR 69, 707 (1996)
See also annotations under ORS 243.711 to 243.760 in permanent edition.
Notes of Decisions
Savings clause in chapter 536, Oregon Laws 1973, did not prevent application of expanded bargaining rights to collective bargaining agreement then in force. Redmond Sch. Dist. No. 2J v. Pub. Employe Relations Bd., 19 Or App 212, 527 P2d 143 (1974)
The board had authority to review, section by section, a city ordinance governing labor relations between the city and its employes and to hold invalid those provisions purporting to govern matters of predominantly state-wide concern and which were in conflict with the 1973 Act. City of Beaverton v. Intl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, 20 Or App 293, 531 P2d 730 (1975), Sup Ct review denied
Board order, defining appropriate bargaining unit and ordering representation election, was interlocutory in nature and was not "final order" subject to judicial review within meaning of ORS 183.480. City of Hermiston v. Employment Relations Board, 280 Or 291, 570 P2d 663 (1977)
Employment Relations Board's policy of adhering to arbitration decisions in subsequent related proceedings advances legislative purpose, and is proper exercise of authority to administer this act. Siegel v. Gresham Grade Teachers Association, 32 Or App 541, 574 P2d 692 (1978)
Public Employes' Collective Bargaining Law did not bar state agency from using state time and funds to campaign against labor organization in representation election. OSEA v. Department of Commerce, 34 Or App 727, 579 P2d 872 (1978)
Juvenile counselor appointed pursuant to [former] ORS 419.604 did not acquire collective bargaining rights granted by these sections where there was no showing that juvenile court judge had expressly authorized employer representatives to bargain on counselor's behalf concerning terms and conditions of his employment. Schmidt v. Jackson County Juv. Dept., 49 Or App 349, 619 P2d 1307 (1980)
Employment Relations Board employed scope of review contrary to Public Employe Relations Act when it reviewed merits of arbitration award rather than only its repugnancy to Public Employe Relations Act. Willamina Ed. Assoc. v. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J, 50 Or App 195, 623 P2d 658 (1981)
Since Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act is general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic and other regulatory objectives of this state which do not affect freedom of local community to choose its own political form, it does not mandate structural and organizational arrangements of local governments contrary to Oregon Constitution, Article XI, section 2. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)
State's decision to enact Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act supersedes city's power to allow its voters to arbitrate unresolved labor disputes and grant of power by Oregon Constitution, Article IV, section 1 to legislate by popular vote does not affect state's power in this area. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)
Arbitrator's failure to conclude that school district violated collective bargaining agreement by violating statutory requirements incorporated into agreement was not sufficiently egregious to be reversible as being "repugnant" to act. Eugene Educ. Assoc. v. Eugene School Dist 4J, 58 Or App 140, 648 P2d 60 (1982)
Employment Relations Board formulation of test for review of arbitration awards in enforcement proceedings which would permit enforcement of arbitrator's award unless (1) parties did not, in a written contract, agree to accept such an award as final and binding or (2) enforcement of the award would be contrary to public policy, was consistent with policies of Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J v. Willamina Ed. Assn., 60 Or App 629, 655 P2d 189 (1982)
Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act requirement that juvenile court judge bargain in good faith with representatives of juvenile counselors and refrain from establishing terms and conditions of counselors' employment in violation of applicable contractual provisions did not constitute an undue burden or interference with his judicial functions under [former] ORS 419.604 or the separation of powers provision contained in Article III, section 1 of the Oregon Constitution. Circuit Court v. AFSCME, 61 Or App 311, 657 P2d 1237 (1983), aff'd 295 Or 542, 669 P2d 314 (1983)
Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act applies to the Judicial Department and is not inconsistent with ORS 1.002 or 1.008. Lent v. ERB, 63 Or App 400, 664 P2d 1110 (1983), Sup Ct review denied
Employment Relations Board did not exceed statutory authority under Public Employes Collective Bargaining Act in designating appropriate bargaining unit which consists of police dispatchers who are employes who can strike and police officers who are forbidden from striking. City of Canby v. Canby Police Association, 68 Or App 317, 680 P2d 1033 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Statutory purpose to provide uniform basis for employe organizing and bargaining would be subverted by holding that statute authorizing county civil service system supersedes collective bargaining required by this Act. AFSCME v. Clackamas County, 69 Or App 488, 687 P2d 1102 (1984)
Board had authority to order restitution where union collected "fair share" payments from nonunion public employees without complying with safeguards instituted to protect employees' rights of free speech and association. Elvin v. OPEU, 313 Or 165, 832 P2d 36 (1992)
Where public employees brought action for negligent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment against county employer, claims were not within jurisdiction of Employment Relations Board because claims were common law issues rather than public labor dispute. Black v. Coos County, 288 Or App 25, 405 P3d 178 (2017)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
School law on mediation as an exclusive procedure, (1971) Vol 35, p 961; seniority as a related economic issue, (1972) Vol 35, p 1134; legality of binding arbitration in public employment collective bargaining, (1972) Vol 36, p 18; validity of collective bargaining agreements between county intermediate education district and local education association on transfer of sick leave, (1975) Vol 37, p 328; authority of teachers to strike during contract year in absence of collective bargaining agreements, and to engage in picketing, (1975) Vol 37, p 732
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 7-69 (1971); 54 OLR 337-371 (1975); 56 OLR 457 (1977); 21 WLR 454 (1985); 70 OLR 969 (1991); 28 WLR 259 (1992); 32 WLR 69, 707 (1996)
Notes of Decisions
Effect of Public Employe Relations Act is to modify authority of Personnel Division so that, while division retains responsibility for establishing general job salary grades and classifications, specific salary within each range which is paid to employe in public employe bargaining unit is subject to negotiation or arbitration under terms of this chapter. AFSCME v. Executive Dept., 52 Or App 457, 628 P2d 1228 (1981), Sup Ct review denied
Provision of collective bargaining agreement giving present employes lateral transfer rights was valid under ORS 240.321 and fact that its implementation resulted in male succeeding female employe did not violate state affirmative action statutes. State Executive Dept. v. OPEU, 91 Or App 124, 754 P2d 582 (1988)
Atty. Gen. Opinions
State agencies paying carpooling employes' parking fees, (1974) Vol 36, p 1015
Law Review Citations
51 OLR 23, 44 (1971)