Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 242.310 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

242.310 Short title. ORS 242.310 to 242.640 and 242.990 (1) shall be known as the Custodians’ Civil Service Law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 2004–2006 · leading case: Walter v. Scherzinger, 121 P.3d 644 (Or. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Walter v. Scherzinger, 121 P.3d 644 (Or. 2005). · cites it 6× “The issue in this case is whether, in accordance with the text of the Custodians' Civil Service Law (CCSL), ORS 242.310 to 242.640 and ORS 242.990, [1] the Portland Public School District (the district) must employ custodians and whether the district must do so consistently with…”

Walter v. Scherzinger, 89 P.3d 1265 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “ERB held that a proposal by respondent Portland Public School District (PPS) to contract out the district’s custodial services did not violate the Custodians’ Civil Service Law (CCSL), ORS 242.310 to 242.640 and ORS 242.990, and, therefore, was not a prohibited subject for…”

Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Serv. Bd., 103 P.3d 1122 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “This procedurally complex case involves two issues: (1) whether a decision by the Employment Relations Board (ERB) that PPS’s proposal to contract out its custodial work was not a prohibited subject of bargaining precluded the Custodians Civil Service Board (the board) from…”

Walter v. Scherzinger, 89 P.3d 1273 (Or. Ct. App. 2004). “Specifically, plaintiffs contended that a proposal to contract out custodial services in the Portland Public School District violated the Custodians’ Civil Service Law (CCSL), ORS 242.310 to 242.640 and ORS 242.990, and, consequently, was a prohibited subject of bargaining under…”

Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Serv. Bd., 149 P.3d 142 (Or. Ct. App. 2006). “However, in Walter the Supreme Court held that the Custodians’ Civil Service Law (CCSL), ORS 242.310 to 242.640, required the district to use its own employees to provide custodial services and, therefore, the district could not agree with an outside contractor to provide those…”

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.