A. The Public Employees Relations Board is empowered, as hereinafter provided, to prevent any person, including bargaining agent and corporate authorities, from engaging in any unfair labor practice as defined herein. B. Whenever it is charged that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, the Board shall have the power to issue and cause to be served upon such person a complaint stating the charges in that respect, and containing a notice of hearing before the Board, at a place therein fixed, not less than five (5) days after the serving of said complaint. The person so complained of shall have the right to file an answer and to appear and give testimony at the time and place fixed in the complaint. In the discretion of the Board, any other person may be allowed to intervene in such proceeding. C. If upon the preponderance of the testimony taken the Board shall be of the opinion that the person named in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, then the Board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue and cause to be served on such person an order requiring such person to cease and desist from such unfair labor practice. Such order may further require such person to make reports from time to time showing the extent to which it has complied with the order. If upon the preponderance of the testimony taken the Board shall not be of the opinion that the person served in the complaint has engaged in or is engaging in any such unfair labor practice, then the Board shall state its findings of fact and shall issue an order dismissing the complaint. D. The Board, or any interested party, shall have the power to petition the district court, wherein the unfair labor practice in question occurred, for the enforcement of such order and for appropriate temporary relief of restraining order.
Added by Laws 1985, c. 148, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
City of Hugo v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 886 P.2d 485 (Okla. 1994).
· cites it 16× “We find that: 1) a review of the entire record reveals that the finding of an unfair labor practice is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) the authority of the PERB to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to 11 O.S.1991 § 51-104b(C) does not extend to requiring…”
City of Tulsa v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 845 P.2d 872 (Okla. 1990).
· cites it 2× “It issued findings of fact and conclusions of law along with an opinion and a Cease and Desist Order as follows: The City of Tulsa is hereby ordered, pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 51-104b(C) and consonant with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Opinion entered…”
City of Midwest City v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 2003 OK CIV APP 36, 69 P.3d 1218.
· cites it 2× “A; (8) PERB disregarded competent, material, and substantive evidence pertaining to the reservation of management rights under the CBA; (4) PERB disregarded competent, material, and substantive evidence pertaining to Lodge 127s failure to negotiate in good faith for any change…”
Okla. Stat. tit. 11, § 51-104b(C): 3 cases
City of Hugo v. State ex rel. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 886 P.2d 485 (Okla. 1994).
“We find that: 1) a review of the entire record reveals that the finding of an unfair labor practice is supported by substantial evidence; and 2) the authority of the PERB to issue a cease and desist order pursuant to 11 O.S.1991 § 51-104b(C) does not extend to requiring…”
City of Tulsa v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 845 P.2d 872 (Okla. 1990).
“It issued findings of fact and conclusions of law along with an opinion and a Cease and Desist Order as follows: The City of Tulsa is hereby ordered, pursuant to 11 O.S.Supp. 1985, § 51-104b(C) and consonant with the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Opinion entered…”
City of Midwest City v. Pub. Employees Relations Bd., 2003 OK CIV APP 36, 69 P.3d 1218.
“A; (8) PERB disregarded competent, material, and substantive evidence pertaining to the reservation of management rights under the CBA; (4) PERB disregarded competent, material, and substantive evidence pertaining to Lodge 127s failure to negotiate in good faith for any change…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.