Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Federation of Oregon Parole & Probation Officers v. State, Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Decided January 18, 1995No. UP-51-91; CA A81631Published

1ConcurrenceHaselton, J.

I agree that the state was obliged to bargain impacts of the intergovernmental transfer and that its refusal to do so was an unfair labor practice. However, I do not agree with the majority’s implication that, on remand, ERB can somehow order the parties to “come together in good faith and acknowledge the legitimate interests of the other.” 132 Or App at 412. Instead, ERB’s authority on remand is limited to *413assessing representation costs and attorney fees. ORS 243.676(2)(d), (e).

The state no longer employs the transferred officers; Multnomah County does. FOPPO no longer represents those…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Brumnett v. Psychiatric Security Review BoardOregon Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Elvin v. Oregon Public Employes UnionOregon Supreme Court · 1992
  3. Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n v. Gresham Grade School District No. 4Court of Appeals of Oregon · 1981
  4. Elvin v. Oregon Public Employees UnionCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1990
  5. Oregon School Employees Ass'n v. Lake County School DistrictCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1988

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API