240.560 Appeal
procedure. (1) A
regular employee who is reduced, dismissed, suspended or demoted, shall have
the right to appeal to the Employment Relations Board not later than 30 days
after the effective date of the reduction, dismissal, suspension or demotion.
The appeal must be in writing. The appeal is timely if it is received by the
board or postmarked, if mailed postpaid and properly addressed, not later than
30 days after the effective date of the reduction, dismissal, suspension or
demotion. The board shall hear the appeal within 30 days after the board
receives the appeal, unless the parties to the hearing agree to a postponement.
The board shall furnish the division of the service concerned with a copy of
the appeal in advance of the hearing.
(2) The hearing
shall be conducted as provided for a contested case in ORS chapter 183.
(3) If the board
finds that the action complained of was taken by the appointing authority for
any political, religious or racial reasons, or because of sex, marital status
or age, the employee shall be reinstated to the position and shall not suffer
any loss in pay.
(4) In all other
cases, if the board finds that the action was not taken in good faith for
cause, it shall order the immediate reinstatement and the reemployment of the
employee in the position without the loss of pay. In lieu of affirming the
action, the board may modify the action by directing a suspension without pay
for a given period, and a subsequent restoration to duty, or a demotion in
classification, grade or pay. The findings and order of the board shall be
certified in writing to the appointing authority and shall be forthwith put
into effect by the appointing authority. [Amended by 1957 c.205 §1; 1959 c.689 §6;
1969 c.80 §78; 1971 c.734 §35; 1975 c.427 §12; 1977 c.400 §1; 1977 c.770 §6;
1993 c.778 §24; 2003 c.213 §1]
Notes of Decisions
Tupper v. Fairview Hosp. & Train. Ctr., Etc., 556 P.2d 1340 (Or. 1976).
· cites it 4× “Because of our disposition of this case, we will discuss only the first two of these issues. The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution imposes procedural due process constraints on governmental actions which deprive individuals of significant liberty or property…”
Fairview Hosp. & Training Ctr. v. Stanton, 560 P.2d 667 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
· cites it 6× “The relevant statute, ORS 240.560, provides: "(1) A regular employe who is reduced, dismissed, suspended or demoted, shall have the right to appeal to the board not later than 10 days after the effective date of such reduction, dismissal, suspension or demotion.”
Olsen v. Deschutes Cnty., 127 P.3d 655 (Or. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “530, in turn, provided for a civil action based on a violation of the Whistleblower Law, and included a measure of damages and an applicable statute of limitation: "In addition to appeal proceedings of ORS 240.560 for a state employee and any comparable provisions for employees…”
Civil Rights Div. of Bureau of Labor v. Williams, 573 P.2d 270 (Or. 1977).
· cites it 30× “2d 1005 : "`* * * To construe ORS 240.560 as employe urges would result in vesting disciplinary power of the various state agencies over their employes in the Board and not the agencies which appoint them.”
Brown v. Oregon Coll. of Educ., 628 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 9× “) 2 We explained the reason for the "no reasonable employer” test as follows: "As we noted in Phillips , this statutory analysis is reasonable because: * * To construe ORS 240.560 as employe urges would result in vesting disciplinary power of the various state agencies over…”
Phillips v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 490 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
· cites it 6× “” Central to employe’s claim that the circuit court erred in reversing the Board’s order is the role of the Public Employe Relations Board in hearing appeals pursuant to ORS 240.560. That section provides: ORS 240.”
Thompson v. Sec'y of State, 526 P.2d 621 (Or. Ct. App. 1974).
· cites it 6× “In accordance with ORS 240.560 the Secretary of State has petitioned this court for judicial review of a final order issued by the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB or the Board).”
State v. Graf, 853 P.2d 277 (Or. 1993).
· cites it 4× “That question turns on the interpretation of regulations and statutes concerning termination of management service employees for disciplinary reasons, OAR 105-80-003 (1989) 4 and ORS 240.560. OAR 105-80-003 (1989) provided in part: “(3) Pre-Termination Proceeding When…”
Lincoln Cnty. Sch. Dist. v. Mayer, 591 P.2d 755 (Or. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “895(1) vesting authority in the district school board to dismiss permanent teachers.”
Simpson v. W. Graphics Corp., 631 P.2d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “ERB must order reinstatement in such cases whenever it finds "that the action was not taken in good faith for cause.”
Elvin v. Oregon Pub. Employees Union, 793 P.2d 338 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “Although there is apparently nothing in the authorizing statute which gives PERB the authority to issue such an order on its own, see ORS 240.560, the constitutional nature of the deprivation involved is enough to require this court to direct that such an award be made.”
Draper v. Astoria Sch. Dist. No. 1C, 995 F. Supp. 1122 (D. Or. 1998).
“530, which provides that: In addition to appeal proceedings of ORS 240.560 for a state employee and any comparable provisions for employees of political subdivisions and remedies available under ORS 659.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.560(1) — 5 cases
Fairview Hosp. & Training Ctr. v. Stanton, 560 P.2d 667 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“The relevant statute, ORS 240.560, provides: "(1) A regular employe who is reduced, dismissed, suspended or demoted, shall have the right to appeal to the board not later than 10 days after the effective date of such reduction, dismissal, suspension or demotion.”
Civil Rights Div. of Bureau of Labor v. Williams, 573 P.2d 270 (Or. 1977).
“2d 1005 : "`* * * To construe ORS 240.560 as employe urges would result in vesting disciplinary power of the various state agencies over their employes in the Board and not the agencies which appoint them.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.560(2) — 3 cases
Fairview Hosp. & Training Ctr. v. Stanton, 560 P.2d 667 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).
“The relevant statute, ORS 240.560, provides: "(1) A regular employe who is reduced, dismissed, suspended or demoted, shall have the right to appeal to the board not later than 10 days after the effective date of such reduction, dismissal, suspension or demotion.”
State v. Graf, 853 P.2d 277 (Or. 1993).
“That question turns on the interpretation of regulations and statutes concerning termination of management service employees for disciplinary reasons, OAR 105-80-003 (1989) 4 and ORS 240.560. OAR 105-80-003 (1989) provided in part: “(3) Pre-Termination Proceeding When…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.560(3) — 2 cases
Civil Rights Div. of Bureau of Labor v. Williams, 573 P.2d 270 (Or. 1977).
“2d 1005 : "`* * * To construe ORS 240.560 as employe urges would result in vesting disciplinary power of the various state agencies over their employes in the Board and not the agencies which appoint them.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 240.560(4) — 8 cases
Civil Rights Div. of Bureau of Labor v. Williams, 573 P.2d 270 (Or. 1977).
“2d 1005 : "`* * * To construe ORS 240.560 as employe urges would result in vesting disciplinary power of the various state agencies over their employes in the Board and not the agencies which appoint them.”
Phillips v. State Bd. of Higher Educ., 490 P.2d 1005 (Or. Ct. App. 1971).
“” Central to employe’s claim that the circuit court erred in reversing the Board’s order is the role of the Public Employe Relations Board in hearing appeals pursuant to ORS 240.560. That section provides: ORS 240.”
Brown v. Oregon Coll. of Educ., 628 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“) 2 We explained the reason for the "no reasonable employer” test as follows: "As we noted in Phillips , this statutory analysis is reasonable because: * * To construe ORS 240.560 as employe urges would result in vesting disciplinary power of the various state agencies over…”
State v. Graf, 853 P.2d 277 (Or. 1993).
“That question turns on the interpretation of regulations and statutes concerning termination of management service employees for disciplinary reasons, OAR 105-80-003 (1989) 4 and ORS 240.560. OAR 105-80-003 (1989) provided in part: “(3) Pre-Termination Proceeding When…”
Simpson v. W. Graphics Corp., 631 P.2d 805 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“ERB must order reinstatement in such cases whenever it finds "that the action was not taken in good faith for cause.”
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.