243.656 Policy
statement. The
Legislative Assembly finds and declares that:
(1) The people of
this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and
cooperative relationships between government and its employees;
(2) Recognition
by public employers of the right of public employees to organize and full
acceptance of the principle and procedure of collective negotiation between
public employers and public employee organizations can alleviate various forms
of strife and unrest. Experience in the private and public sectors of our
economy has proved that unresolved disputes in the public service are injurious
to the public, the governmental agencies, and public employees;
(3) Experience in
private and public employment has also proved that protection by law of the
right of employees to organize and negotiate collectively safeguards employees
and the public from injury, impairment and interruptions of necessary services,
and removes certain recognized sources of strife and unrest, by encouraging
practices fundamental to the peaceful adjustment of disputes arising out of
differences as to wages, hours, terms and other working conditions, and by
establishing greater equality of bargaining power between public employers and
public employees;
(4) The state has
a basic obligation to protect the public by attempting to assure the orderly
and uninterrupted operations and functions of government;
(5) It is in the
public interest to ensure that exclusive representatives of public employees
are able to effectively carry out their statutory duties by having direct
access to represented employees, including communicating with the employees at
the workplace or otherwise;
(6) It is the
purpose of ORS 243.650 to 243.809 to obligate public employers, public
employees and their representatives to enter into collective negotiations with
willingness to resolve grievances and disputes relating to employment relations
and to enter into written and signed contracts evidencing agreements resulting
from such negotiations. It is also the purpose of ORS 243.650 to 243.809 to
promote the improvement of employer-employee relations within the various
public employers by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of
public employees to join organizations of their own choice, and to be
represented by such organizations in their employment relations with public
employers; and
(7) Ensuring
meaningful communication between labor organizations and employees increases
the effectiveness of public employees’ work performance. [1973 c.536 §2; 2019
c.429 §8]
Notes of Decisions
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992)
or · cites it 10×
“" PECBA also declares that the "people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees," ORS 243.656(1); that "[r]ecognition by public employers of the right of public employees to…”
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489 (1981)
or · cites it 4×
“ORS 243.656, a policy statement for the Act, states: "The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: "(1) The people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employes; "* * * * *.”
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill County (2020)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“]” ORS 243.656(6). As already noted, under PECBA, Oregon pub- lic employees may exercise their right to join a labor orga- nization of their choice without any action by ERB.”
Morrison v. SCH. DIST. NO. 48, WASHINGTON CO. (1981)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“Amicus argues that as between the parties engaged in collective bargaining, access to information is a one-way street, because union organizations are not public bodies subject to disclosure, resulting in disequilibrium between employer and employee in the collective bargaining…”
Portland Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Portland (1988)
or · cites it 2×
“That purpose, stated at length in ORS 243.656, is to channel labor disputes into negotiation and mediation and thereby avoid the impairment and interruption of public services caused by strikes, lockouts and other forms of economic warfare.”
University of Oregon Chapter, AFT v. University of Oregon (1988)
orctapp · cites it 2×
“AFT suggests that, to be consistent with the statutes, ERB's exercise of policy discretion in defining and designating "appropriate bargaining units" must make employe preference preeminent over other values and policies of PECBA.”
Salem Police Employees Union v. City of Salem (1989)
or
“This court reasoned: “[T]he Legislative Assembly’s purpose in enacting collective bargaining legislation for public employers and employees * * * is to channel labor disputes into negotiation and mediation and thereby avoid the impairment and interruption of public services…”
Graves v. Arnado (1989)
or
“ORS 243.656 encourages public employers to negotiate and enter into collective bargaining agreements that may limit discretion under ORS 204.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.656(1) — 5 cases
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992)
or
“" PECBA also declares that the "people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees," ORS 243.656(1); that "[r]ecognition by public employers of the right of public employees to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.656(2) — 4 cases
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489 (1981)
or
“ORS 243.656, a policy statement for the Act, states: "The Legislative Assembly finds and declares that: "(1) The people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employes; "* * * * *.”
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992)
or
“" PECBA also declares that the "people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees," ORS 243.656(1); that "[r]ecognition by public employers of the right of public employees to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.656(3) — 6 cases
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992)
or
“" PECBA also declares that the "people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees," ORS 243.656(1); that "[r]ecognition by public employers of the right of public employees to…”
Morrison v. SCH. DIST. NO. 48, WASHINGTON CO. (1981)
orctapp
“Amicus argues that as between the parties engaged in collective bargaining, access to information is a one-way street, because union organizations are not public bodies subject to disclosure, resulting in disequilibrium between employer and employee in the collective bargaining…”
University of Oregon Chapter, AFT v. University of Oregon (1988)
orctapp
“AFT suggests that, to be consistent with the statutes, ERB's exercise of policy discretion in defining and designating "appropriate bargaining units" must make employe preference preeminent over other values and policies of PECBA.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.656(4) — 1 case
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992)
or
“" PECBA also declares that the "people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees," ORS 243.656(1); that "[r]ecognition by public employers of the right of public employees to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.656(5) — 12 cases
Shockey v. City of Portland (1992)
or
“" PECBA also declares that the "people of this state have a fundamental interest in the development of harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees," ORS 243.656(1); that "[r]ecognition by public employers of the right of public employees to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.656(6) — 1 case
Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill County (2020)
orctapp
“]” ORS 243.656(6). As already noted, under PECBA, Oregon pub- lic employees may exercise their right to join a labor orga- nization of their choice without any action by ERB.”
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.