243.676
Processing of unfair labor practice complaints; civil penalties. (1) Whenever a written complaint
is filed alleging that any person has engaged in or is engaging in any unfair
labor practice listed in ORS 243.672 (1) to (4) and 243.752, the Employment
Relations Board or its agent shall:
(a) Cause to be
served upon such person a copy of the complaint;
(b) Investigate
the complaint to determine if a hearing on the unfair labor practice charge is
warranted. If the investigation reveals that no issue of fact or law exists,
the board may dismiss the complaint; and
(c) Set the
matter for hearing if the board finds in its investigation made pursuant to
paragraph (b) of this subsection that an issue of fact or law exists. The
hearing shall be before the board or an agent of the board not more than 20
days after a copy of the complaint has been served on the person.
(2) Where, as a
result of the hearing required pursuant to subsection (1)(c) of this section,
the board finds that any person named in the complaint has engaged in or is
engaging in any unfair labor practice charged in the complaint, the board
shall:
(a) State its
findings of fact;
(b) Issue and
cause to be served on such person an order that the person cease and desist
from the unfair labor practice;
(c) Take such
affirmative action, including but not limited to the reinstatement of employees
with or without back pay, as necessary to effectuate the purposes of ORS
240.060, 240.065, 240.080, 240.123, 243.650 to 243.809 and 341.290;
(d) Designate the
amount and award representation costs, if any, to the prevailing party; and
(e) Designate the
amount and award attorney fees, if any, to the prevailing party on appeal,
including proceedings for Supreme Court review, of a board order.
(3) Where the
board finds that the person named in the complaint has not engaged in or is not
engaging in an unfair labor practice, the board shall:
(a) Issue an
order dismissing the complaint; and
(b) Designate the
amount and award representation costs, if any, to the prevailing party.
(4)(a) The board
may award a civil penalty to any person as a result of an unfair labor practice
complaint hearing, in the aggregate amount of up to $1,000 per case, without
regard to attorney fees, if:
(A) The complaint
has been affirmed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section and the board
finds that the person who has committed, or who is engaging, in an unfair labor
practice has done so repetitively, knowing that the action taken was an unfair
labor practice and took the action disregarding this knowledge, or that the
action constituting the unfair labor practice was egregious; or
(B) The complaint
has been dismissed pursuant to subsection (3) of this section, and that the
complaint was frivolously filed, or filed with the intent to harass the other
person, or both.
(b)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, if the board finds that a
public employer named in the complaint violated ORS 243.670 (2), the board
shall impose a civil penalty equal to triple the amount of funds the public
employer expended to assist, promote or deter union organizing.
(c)(A)
Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this subsection, but subject to subparagraph
(C) of this paragraph, if the board finds that the public employer named in the
complaint has violated ORS 243.804 (4) or 243.806 (7) and that the employer has
previously violated either provision, the board shall impose a civil penalty of
not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000. For any subsequent violation, the
board shall impose a civil penalty of not less than $5,000 nor more than
$10,000.
(B) In
determining the amount of the civil penalty to impose under this paragraph, the
board shall consider extenuating circumstances that the employer has proven
contributed to or caused the violation. An extenuating circumstance is not an
affirmative defense to a violation described in subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph.
(C) A finding of
a violation under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph is not subject to a civil
penalty under subparagraph (A) of this paragraph if the employer establishes
that the violation resulted directly from:
(i) A natural
disaster, as defined in ORS 197A.440;
(ii) A computer
crime, as defined in ORS 164.377; or
(iii) Destruction
by fire, flood, or other catastrophic event at the employer’s place of business
that significantly disrupted the public employer’s operations relating to the
violation.
(5) As used in
subsections (1) to (4) of this section, “person” includes but is not limited to
individuals, labor organizations, associations and public employers. [1973
c.536 §5; 1979 c.219 §1; 1983 c.504 §1; 1983 c.559 §1; 2013 c.663 §7; 2019
c.429 §12; 2019 c.439 §2; 2025 c.270 §1]
(Representation
Matters)
Notes of Decisions
Shockey v. City of Portland, 837 P.2d 505 (Or. 1992).
· cites it 8× “ORS 243.676. ORS 243.672(1)(g) provides: "(1) It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer or its designated representative to do any of the following: "* * * * * "(g) Violate the provisions of any written contract with respect to employment relations[.”
Ahern v. Oregon Pub. Employees Union, 988 P.2d 364 (Or. 1999).
· cites it 10× “We now hold that, under ORS 243.676, ERB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether OPEU committed an unfair labor practice.”
Davenport v. Washington Educ. Ass'n, 147 Wash. App. 704 (Wash. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed, stating that Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676 (2)(c) gave the Board authority to order “ ‘such affirmative action .”
Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n v. Gresham Grade Sch. Dist. No. 4, 630 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 5× “Where, as here, because of the agency’s inaction, it is not clear that it has correctly interpreted the law requiring "affirmative action,” ORS 243.676(2) (or whether it has even attempted to do so), our task on review becomes quite difficult.”
Trout v. Umatilla Cnty. Sch. Dist. Uh3-Milton-Freewater, 712 P.2d 814 (Or. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 2× “2 District argues that the Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over any breach of the agreement and that plaintiffs cannot sue District for breach of that contract in circuit court. 3 District is correct.”
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 2× “It observed in its order that the same conduct was alleged to have violated (1)(f) but said "This Board * * * has a long-standing policy of refusing to consider derivative violations of PERA (citations omitted).”
Oregon City Fed'n of Teachers v. Oregon City Educ. Ass'n, 584 P.2d 303 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 3× “4 ERB’s processing of unfair labor practice complaints is controlled by ORS 243.676, which provides in part: "(2) Where, as a result of the hearing required pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (l)_of this section, the board finds that any *32 person, named in the complaint…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(1) — 6 cases
Shockey v. City of Portland, 837 P.2d 505 (Or. 1992).
“ORS 243.676. ORS 243.672(1)(g) provides: "(1) It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer or its designated representative to do any of the following: "* * * * * "(g) Violate the provisions of any written contract with respect to employment relations[.”
Ahern v. Oregon Pub. Employees Union, 988 P.2d 364 (Or. 1999).
“We now hold that, under ORS 243.676, ERB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether OPEU committed an unfair labor practice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(1)(b) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(1)(b)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(1)(c) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(2) — 19 cases
Shockey v. City of Portland, 837 P.2d 505 (Or. 1992).
“ORS 243.676. ORS 243.672(1)(g) provides: "(1) It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer or its designated representative to do any of the following: "* * * * * "(g) Violate the provisions of any written contract with respect to employment relations[.”
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“It observed in its order that the same conduct was alleged to have violated (1)(f) but said "This Board * * * has a long-standing policy of refusing to consider derivative violations of PERA (citations omitted).”
Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n v. Gresham Grade Sch. Dist. No. 4, 630 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“Where, as here, because of the agency’s inaction, it is not clear that it has correctly interpreted the law requiring "affirmative action,” ORS 243.676(2) (or whether it has even attempted to do so), our task on review becomes quite difficult.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(2)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(2)(b) — 2 cases
Oregon City Fed'n of Teachers v. Oregon City Educ. Ass'n, 584 P.2d 303 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).
“4 ERB’s processing of unfair labor practice complaints is controlled by ORS 243.676, which provides in part: "(2) Where, as a result of the hearing required pursuant to paragraph (c) of subsection (l)_of this section, the board finds that any *32 person, named in the complaint…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(2)(c) — 14 cases
Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n v. Gresham Grade Sch. Dist. No. 4, 630 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“Where, as here, because of the agency’s inaction, it is not clear that it has correctly interpreted the law requiring "affirmative action,” ORS 243.676(2) (or whether it has even attempted to do so), our task on review becomes quite difficult.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(2)(d) — 5 cases
Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n v. Gresham Grade Sch. Dist. No. 4, 630 P.2d 1304 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
“Where, as here, because of the agency’s inaction, it is not clear that it has correctly interpreted the law requiring "affirmative action,” ORS 243.676(2) (or whether it has even attempted to do so), our task on review becomes quite difficult.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(2)(g) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(3) — 3 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(3)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(3)(b) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(4) — 5 cases
Ahern v. Oregon Pub. Employees Union, 988 P.2d 364 (Or. 1999).
“We now hold that, under ORS 243.676, ERB has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether OPEU committed an unfair labor practice.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(4)(a) — 2 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(4)(a)(A) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(5) — 1 case
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(l)(b) — 4 cases
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.676(l)(c) — 1 case
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.