OREGON STATE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. State

Court of Appeals of Oregon

OREGON STATE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. State

871 P.2d 1018, 127 Or. App. 144, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 414

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 30, 1994

DocketUP-38-92; CA A80480

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 871 P.2d 1018 (OREGON STATE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

OREGON STATE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. State, 871 P.2d 1018, 127 Or. App. 144, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 414 (Or. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

*146 RICHARDSON, C. J.

Petitioner, the exclusive bargaining representative of certain state employees, filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Employment Relations Board (ERB), contending that the state had unlawfully refused to bargain over the impact of the sale of a state-owned structure in which the employees park, and had thereby unilaterally changed an employment practice. ORS 243.672(l)(e). The essence of the complaint is that the new owner of the parking facility will charge higher rates than the Department of General Services (DGS) charged when the structure belonged to the state.

ERB dismissed the complaint for two independent reasons: First, it held, the terms and rates for employees’ parking had never been an employment practice or a term or condition of employment, but had always been unilaterally set by DGS, and would continue to be unilaterally fixed by the new owner of the facility; and second, two of the three members of ERB concluded, DGS has statutory authority to operate and dispose of parking facilities, and its exercise of that authority is not subject to bargaining under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. 1

On review, petitioner’s arguments are directed only against the second basis for ERB’s conclusion, and it makes no challenge to the first. Because either ground alone supports ERB’s decision, petitioner fails to present a basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

1

Board member Hein wrote a separate opinion, agreeing with the first ground and disagreeing with the second.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*146 RICHARDSON, C. J.

Petitioner, the exclusive bargaining representative of certain state employees, filed an unfair labor practice complaint with the Employment Relations Board (ERB), contending that the state had unlawfully refused to bargain over the impact of the sale of a state-owned structure in which the employees park, and had thereby unilaterally changed an employment practice. ORS 243.672(l)(e). The essence of the complaint is that the new owner of the parking facility will charge higher rates than the Department of General Services (DGS) charged when the structure belonged to the state.

ERB dismissed the complaint for two independent reasons: First, it held, the terms and rates for employees’ parking had never been an employment practice or a term or condition of employment, but had always been unilaterally set by DGS, and would continue to be unilaterally fixed by the new owner of the facility; and second, two of the three members of ERB concluded, DGS has statutory authority to operate and dispose of parking facilities, and its exercise of that authority is not subject to bargaining under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act. 1

On review, petitioner’s arguments are directed only against the second basis for ERB’s conclusion, and it makes no challenge to the first. Because either ground alone supports ERB’s decision, petitioner fails to present a basis for reversal.

Affirmed.

1

Board member Hein wrote a separate opinion, agreeing with the first ground and disagreeing with the second.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

871 P.2d 1018, 127 Or. App. 144, 1994 Ore. App. LEXIS 414, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oregon-state-police-officers-association-v-state-orctapp-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack