Unfair labor practices
- complaints
- filing fees
Source:
Section 243.672 — Unfair labor practices; complaints; filing fees, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors243.html.
Notes of Decisions
Appropriate test to be applied in determining whether proposed subject is “condition of employment” and therefore mandatory subject for bargaining is to balance educational policy involved against effect that subject has on teacher’s employment. Sutherlin Educ. Assn. v. Sutherlin Sch. Dist., 25 Or App 85, 548 P2d 204 (1976)
Public employer’s refusal to negotiate proposed “union shop” agreement was not unfair labor practice, for such agreements are prohibited subject of bargaining. OSEA v. Oregon State University, 30 Or App 757, 567 P2d 1085 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce arbitration agreements arising out of public-sector labor relations, notwithstanding [former] ORS 33.230. Smith v. State of Oregon, 31 Or App 15, 569 P2d 677 (1977), Sup Ct review denied
Although university’s increase in price of reduced-price-meals provided to cafeteria employes constituted mandatory subject for collective bargaining, local union’s failure to request bargaining on meal price increase until after contract was signed constituted waiver of its right to complain that employer had refused to discuss mandatory subject for collective bargaining. AFSCME v. Board of Higher Education, 31 Or App 251, 570 P2d 388 (1977)
Evidence was sufficient to support Employment Relations Board finding that nonrenewal of teacher’s contract by school district was caused by teacher’s union activity and constituted unfair labor practice. Harrison v. Central Linn School District, 34 Or App 221, 578 P2d 460 (1978), Sup Ct review denied
It was unfair labor practice for school district to refuse to comply with arbitrator’s award of reinstatement and back pay in grievance proceeding under collective bargaining agreement, which provided for “binding” arbitration of grievances and limited authority of arbitrator to “determining whether or not there has been violation of law, policy, rule, or regulation in question.” Corvallis Sch. Dist. v. Corvallis Education Assn., 35 Or App 531, 581 P2d 972 (1978)
Although minority union could, pursuant to ORS 243.782, represent individual petitioners in suit against majority union alleging wrongful withholding of fair share payments, minority union failed to plead or prove that it had suffered any direct injury from conduct complained of, and thus lacked standing as “injured party” to proceed on its own behalf. Oregon City Federation of Teachers v. OCEA, 36 Or App 27, 584 P2d 303 (1978)
In suit against majority union alleging wrongful withholding of fair share payments, teacher had standing to challenge only portions of salary withheld within 180 days preceding filing of complaint. Oregon City Federation of Teachers v. OCEA, 36 Or App 27, 584 P2d 303 (1978)
Where conduct constituting unfair labor practice, if done with requisite intent, occurred within 180 days preceding filing of complaint under this section, evidence of events occurring outside that period was admissible to demonstrate intent. Smith v. Employment Div., 38 Or App 241, 589 P2d 1184 (1979)
Where no provision of collective bargaining agreement between school district and its teachers required arbitration of dismissals of probationary teachers, failure to arbitrate was not an unfair labor practice under this section. Ostrer v. Pine-Eagle School Dist., 40 Or App 265, 594 P2d 1296 (1979)
Where collective bargaining contract had expired and city had enacted ordinance designating fire captains as supervisory, city did not restrain exercise of union activity or interfere with administration of local firefighters’ union by unilaterally removing fire captains from bargaining unit. Medford Firefighters Assn. v. City of Medford, 43 Or App 733, 605 P2d 289 (1979)
Where city did not fill vacant fire inspector position, it did not discriminate against union member by failing to promote him to position. Medford Firefighters Assn. v. City of Medford, 43 Or App 733, 605 P2d 289 (1979)
Where collective bargaining agreement contained “maintenance-of-membership” provision less restrictive than “fair share” provisions excepted under this section, employer enforcement of provision was not unfair labor practice. Stines v. OSEA, 287 Or 643, 601 P2d 799 (1979)
It was not abuse of discretion for Employment Relations Board to adopt and apply, in course of contested case, rule that it is “per se” violation of duty to bargain in good faith for employer to make unilateral change regarding mandatory bargaining subject while employer has duty to bargain. Wasco County v. AFSCME, 46 Or App 859, 613 P2d 1067 (1980)
Refusal to permit juvenile counselor appointed pursuant to [former] ORS 419.604 to pursue grievance procedure of county’s collective bargaining agreement was not unfair labor practice under this section. Schmidt v. Jackson County Juv. Dept., 49 Or App 349, 619 P2d 1307 (1980)
Plaintiff’s allegation that Oregon Public Employes Union breached its duty of fair representation constitutes unfair labor practice which is within exclusive jurisdiction of Employment Relations Board. Coleman v. Children’s Services Division, 71 Or App 687, 694 P2d 555 (1984), Sup Ct review denied
Employment Relations Board may order public employer to enter binding arbitration with mixed unit of both employes allowed to strike and employes prohibited from striking as sanction for committing unfair labor practice after Board has separated mixed unit into two bargaining units. AFSCME Local 1246 v. Fairview Training Center, 81 Or App 165, 724 P2d 895 (1986)
Employer violated this section when it refused to sign agreement containing factfinder’s precise language because both union and employer had accepted factfinder’s recommendations and were unable to agree on other language. Cascade Bargaining Council v. Jefferson Cty. Sch. Dist., 83 Or App 418, 732 P2d 54 (1987)
Collective bargaining agreement is enforceable against employer where employer has given negotiator sufficient authority, notwithstanding school board failure to ratify agreement. South Benton Ed. Assn. v. Monroe Union High, 83 Or App 425, 732 P2d 58 (1987), Sup Ct review denied
Where city council decided to contract out custodial services and communicated directly with affected employe regarding impact of that decision, city committed unfair labor practice. AFSCME Local 2975 v. City of Corvallis, 90 Or App 372, 752 P2d 860 (1988)
Employment Relations Board’s conclusion that “period of negotiations” began when city gave union notice of decision to contract out services was consistent with legislative policy and was correct. AFSCME Local 2975 v. City of Corvallis, 90 Or App 372, 752 P2d 860 (1988)
Employment Relations Board erred by applying objective “reasonable employer” test to determine whether employe’s discharge complied with “just cause” provision of collective bargaining agreement without first determining whether procedures referred to in provisions were applicable and, if so, had been satisfactorily followed. OSEA v. Rainier School Dist. 13, 91 Or App 42, 754 P2d 9 (1988)
Employer’s refusal to agree to same terms with successor union as it had previously agreed to with predecessor union in tentative agreement is not per se unlawful, however, such refusal may be evidence of bad faith bargaining, unlawful discrimination or improper assistance. AFSCME Council 75 v. Oregon Health Sciences Univ, 91 Or App 365, 755 P2d 141 (1988)
Employment Relations Board’s jurisdiction over wage claims arising from public employees’ arbitration award was primary, even if not exclusive, and issues of whether arbitration award was final and binding and whether employer refused or failed to comply with any provision of it were issues for board in first instance, so although not entirely without jurisdiction over dispute, circuit court should have abated claims until Employment Relations Board issued order for circuit court to enforce. Tracy v. Lane County, 305 Or 378, 752 P2d 300 (1988)
City of Salem’s refusal to bargain collectively in good faith concerning its adoption of reserve police officer program was an unfair labor practice under this section. Salem Police Employees Union v. City of Salem, 308 Or 383, 781 P2d 335 (1989)
Records of employees not subject to same provisions as claimant are not relevant to case and do not support claim that district refused to bargain in good faith. OSEA v. Salem-Keizer School Dist. 24J, 103 Or App 221, 797 P2d 375 (1990)
Employment Relations Board correctly interpreted provisions of collective bargaining agreement and substantial evidence supported board’s conclusions that: 1) employee’s dismissal was based on course of conduct; 2) employee was given progressive discipline; and 3) disciplinary notices sent to employee complied with provisions of collective bargaining agreement. OSEA v. Rainier School Dist. No. 13, 311 Or 188, 808 P2d 83 (1991)
Where union committed unfair labor practice by collecting “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)
County did not violate this statute by refusing to turn over information about hiring process for particular position when complainant failed to show that information was relevant to any issue in grievance proceeding. Lane County Public Works Assn. v. Lane County, 118 Or App 46, 846 P2d 414 (1993)
Where annual assessment was payable in installments during year, 180-day filing period limitation was measured from assessment date for each installment payment. Blackburn v. Oregon Education Assn., 127 Or App 607, 873 P2d 485 (1994), Sup Ct review denied
Change required to comply with minimum requirements of law is not automatically exempt from duty to bargain. Washington Cty. Police Officers v. Washington Cty., 321 Or 430, 900 P2d 483 (1995)
Where ERB has issued order requiring specific act of compliance within definite time, action taken to comply with order is not subject to bargaining. Washington Cty. Police Officers v. Washington Cty., 321 Or 430, 900 P2d 483 (1995)
In cases involving alleged refusal to provide information, use of probable or potential relevance test is within discretion allowed to board. Olney School District 11 v. Olney Education Assn., 145 Or App 578, 931 P2d 804 (1997)
To establish prima facie case based on inference that employment action is “because of” protected activity, complainant must show: 1) exercise of protected activity; 2) adverse employment action; and 3) sufficient causal connection between activity and adverse action. Portland Association of Teachers v. Multnomah School District No. 1, 171 Or App 616, 16 P3d 1189 (2000)
Prima facie showing that employment action was “because of” protected activity does not shift burden of proof to employer. Portland Association of Teachers v. Multnomah School District No. 1, 171 Or App 616, 16 P3d 1189 (2000)
Public employer can be injured party for purposes of unfair labor practice claim based on secondary picketing of public official’s residence or business. Jefferson County v. Oregon Public Employees Union, 174 Or App 12, 23 P3d 401 (2001)
Employment Relations Board has authority to determine whether contractual provision of collective bargaining agreement conflicts with federal and state laws prohibiting unlawful employment discrimination. PSU Association of University Professors v. PSU, 240 Or App 108, 246 P3d 1162 (2010), aff’d 352 Or 697, 291 P3d 658 (2012)
Time limitation for filing written complaint with Employee Relations Board begins to run when public employee, labor organization or public employer knows or reasonably should know that unfair labor practice has occurred. Rogue River Education Association v. Rogue River School District No. 35, 244 Or App 181, 260 P3d 619 (2011)
Terms of contract asserted as defense to claim that employer refused to bargain collectively in good faith are subject to analysis of whether employee properly waived those terms. Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State of Oregon, 353 Or 170, 295 P3d 38 (2013)
“Reasonable belief” standard is proper standard for determining which individuals constitute “public employer representative” under ORS 243.650. 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 ORS 243.650 such that employer may be held liable for individual’s conduct under this section. AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon, 360 Or 809, 388 P3d 1028 (2017)
University’s obligation to bargain collectively in good faith with labor exclusive representative included obligation to promptly provide information relevant to grievance that could not be excused by invoking confidentiality of information under Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. 1232g, when Act requires accommodation of request and university made no effort toward such accommodation. Service Employees Int’l Union Local 503 v. University of Oregon, 291 Or App 109, 419 P3d 779 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
To determine whether action of public employer interferes with, restrains or coerces employee in exercise of certain labor rights, court must determine whether, in light of specific circumstances, action would have natural and probable effect of deterring employees in exercise of protected activity. Clackamas County Employees’ Assn. v. Clackamas County, 308 Or App 146, 480 P3d 993 (2020)
Attorney General Opinions
Authority of teachers to strike during contract year in absence of collective bargaining agreements, and to engage in picketing, (1975) Vol 37, p 732; harassment by employer of individuals organizing a union, (1977) Vol 38, p 919
Law Review Citations
19 WLR 75 (1983); 68 OLR 156 (1989); 28 WLR 259 (1992); 32 WLR 707 (1996)
Up to date