Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Lake County v. Teamsters Local Union 223

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided September 27, 2006No. ERB UC-9-04; A126592Published

1ConcurrenceEdmonds, J.

This case involves a determination by the Employment Relations Board (ERB) that Lake County’s newly created position of associate finance director is not a confidential position under ORS 243.650(6) and thus is included within Teamsters Local Union #223’s bargaining unit. 1 The majority holds that Lake County did not preserve the positions at the agency level that it now takes on appeal; thus, under ORAP 5.45(1), the majority exercises its discretion not to consider them. I write separately because part of the majority’s reasoning is inconsistent with the holding of the Oregon Supreme Court…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. WyattOregon Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Stull v. HokeOregon Supreme Court · 1997
  3. State v. FergusonCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 2005
  4. In Re Complaint as to the Conduct of KlugeOregon Supreme Court · 2003
  5. Association of Engineering Employes v. Department of Transportation, Highway DivisionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1985

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API