Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682 (2026)

Representation questions; investigation and hearings on petitions; certification without election; rules; elections

✓ current as of May 2026

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

243.682 Representation questions; investigation and hearings on petitions; certification without election; rules; elections. (1) If a question of representation exists, the Employment Relations Board:

(a)(A)(i) Shall, upon application of a public employer, a public employee or a labor organization, designate the appropriate bargaining unit, and in making its determination shall consider such factors as community of interest, wages, hours and other working conditions of the employees involved, the history of collective bargaining, and the desires of the employees. The board may determine a unit to be the appropriate unit in a particular case even though some other unit might also be appropriate.

(ii) May not designate as appropriate a bargaining unit that includes both guards at a correctional institution or mental hospital or police officers who serve in a rank equivalent to the rank of sergeant and rank-and-file subordinate employees. The limitation under this sub-subparagraph does not apply to a bargaining unit certified or recognized prior to April 4, 2024.

(B) Unless a labor organization and a public employer agree otherwise, may not designate as appropriate a bargaining unit that includes:

(i) A faculty member described in ORS 243.650 (23)(c)(D) who supervises one or more other faculty members; and

(ii) Any faculty member who is supervised by a faculty member described in sub-subparagraph (i) of this subparagraph.

(b) Shall investigate and conduct a hearing on a petition that has been filed by:

(A) A labor organization alleging that 30 percent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit desire to be represented for collective bargaining by an exclusive representative;

(B) A labor organization alleging that 30 percent of the employees in an appropriate bargaining unit assert that the designated exclusive representative is no longer the representative of the majority of the employees in the unit;

(C) A public employer alleging that one or more labor organizations has presented a claim to the public employer requesting recognition as the exclusive representative in an appropriate bargaining unit; or

(D) An employee or group of employees alleging that 30 percent of the employees assert that the designated exclusive representative is no longer the representative of the majority of employees in the unit.

(2)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, when an employee, group of employees or labor organization acting on behalf of the employees files a petition alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining wish to be represented by a labor organization for that purpose, or when a labor organization files a petition alleging that the majority in a group of unrepresented employees seek to be added to an existing bargaining unit, the board shall investigate the petition. If the board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining or a majority of employees in a group of unrepresented employees that is appropriate to add to an existing bargaining unit have signed authorizations designating the labor organization specified in the petition as the employees’ bargaining representative and that no other labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit or in the group of unrepresented employees seeking to be added to an existing bargaining unit, the board may not conduct an election but shall certify the labor organization as the exclusive representative unless a petition for a representation election is filed as provided in subsection (4) of this section.

(b) The board by rule shall develop guidelines and procedures for the designation by employees of a bargaining representative in the manner described in paragraph (a) of this subsection. The guidelines and procedures must include:

(A) Model collective bargaining authorization language that may be used for purposes of making the designations described in paragraph (a) of this subsection;

(B) Procedures to be used by the board to establish the authenticity of signed authorizations designating bargaining representatives;

(C) Procedures to be used by the board to notify affected employees of the filing of a petition requesting certification under subsection (4) of this section;

(D) Procedures for filing a petition to request a representation election, including a timeline of not more than 14 days after notice has been delivered to the affected employees of a petition filed under paragraph (a) of this subsection;

(E) Procedures that may be used for preparing and signing authorizations designating bargaining representatives using an electronic record and an electronic signature, as those terms are defined in ORS 84.004; and

(F) Procedures for expedited resolution of any dispute about the scope of the appropriate bargaining unit. The resolution of the dispute may occur after an election is conducted.

(c) Solicitation and rescission of a signed authorization designating bargaining representatives are subject to the provisions of ORS 243.672.

(3)(a) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (b) of this subsection, a petition for representation submitted as an electronic record that includes a signed authorization using an electronic signature as described under subsection (2)(b)(E) of this section must:

(A) Include the following information:

(i) The name of signer;

(ii) The signer’s electronic mail address or social media account;

(iii) The signer’s telephone number;

(iv) The exact language that the signer is assenting to by providing the electronic signature;

(v) The date of submission of the electronic signature; and

(vi) The name of the public employer that employs the signer; and

(B) Be accompanied by a verification declaration by the petitioning party:

(i) Specifying the technology used to obtain and verify the signatures;

(ii) Providing the methods used to ensure the authenticity of the signature; and

(iii) Confirming that the information transmitted to the signer was the same information to which the signer assented.

(b) If the technology used to provide the signed authorization does not support digital signatures that are suited to satisfy the requirements of the verification declaration described in paragraph (a) of this subsection, the petitioning party must submit evidence that, after the petitioning party obtained an electronic signature, the party promptly transmitted a confirmation transmission to the signer confirming that all of the information described under paragraph (a)(A)(i) to (vi) of this subsection is true.

(4)(a) Notwithstanding subsection (2) of this section, when a petition requesting certification has been filed under subsection (2) of this section, an employee or a group of employees in the unit designated by the petition, or one or more of the unrepresented employees seeking to be added to an existing bargaining unit, may file a petition with the board to request that a representation election be conducted.

(b) The petition requesting a representation election must be supported by at least 30 percent of the employees in the bargaining unit designated by the petition, or 30 percent of the unrepresented employees seeking to be added to an existing bargaining unit.

(c) The representation election shall be conducted on-site or by mail not later than 45 days after the date on which the petition was filed.

(5) Except as provided in ORS 243.692, if the board finds in a hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (1)(b) of this section that a question of representation exists, the board shall conduct an election by secret ballot, at a time and place convenient for the employees of the jurisdiction and also within a reasonable period of time after the filing has taken place, and certify the results of the election. [1973 c.536 §7; 2007 c.833 §1; 2013 c.663 §8; 2017 c.496 §3; 2017 c.553 §2; 2023 c.222 §1; 2024 c.84 §2]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 29 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2021 · leading case: Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill Cnty., 304 Or. App. 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill Cnty., 304 Or. App. 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 9× “650(1) (defin- ing “appropriate bargaining unit” to include “the unit des- ignated by [ERB] to be appropriate for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining”); ORS 243.682 (setting out procedures and criteria for ERB’s designation of group of employees as an “appropriate bargaining…”

Univ. of Oregon Chapter, AFT v. Univ. of Oregon, 759 P.2d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 22× “" ORS 243.682(1) provides: "If a question of representation exists, the board shall: "(1) Upon application of a public employer, public employe or a labor organization, designate the appropriate bargaining unit, and in making its determination shall consider such factors as…”

Linn-Benton-Lincoln Educ. Ass'n/OEA/NEA v. Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD, 989 P.2d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 6× “ORS 243.682(1). [1] If the interventionists are "academically licensed," as the phrase is used in ORS 243.”

Oregon Tech AAUP v. Oregon Inst. of Tech., 500 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 5× “However, ERB did not make an appropriateness determination under ORS 243.682 in this case, and, accordingly, is not entitled to any deference associated with that function.”

Reynolds Sch. Dist. v. Oregon Sch. Employees Ass'n, 650 P.2d 119 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 5× “See ORS 243.682 to 243.686. After a unit designation by ERB, an election is required to determine whether the majority in the unit wants representation and, if so, who is to be the bargaining representative.”

Oregon Pub. Employées Union v. State, 22 P.3d 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 7× “682 provides, in part: “If a question of representation exists, [ERB] shall: “(1) Upon application of a public employer, public employee or a labor organization, designate the appropriate bargaining unit, and in making its determination shall consider such factors as community…”

Klamath Cty. v. Laborers Int. U. of Na, Loc. No. 915, 534 P.2d 1169 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 3× “This is an appeal from a determination by the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB) that the employes in the Klamath County assessor’s office constitute an appropriate bargaining unit under ORS 243.682 ① for the purpose of electing an exclusive rep *283 resentative to bargain…”

Vaandering v. Rosenblum, 371 P.3d 1194 (Or. 2016). · cites it 2× “If a union is either recognized or certified as the exclusive representative of the employees within a bargaining unit, see ORS 243.682 (providing procedures for recognizing or certifying public employee unions), the employees in the bargaining unit may but need not join the…”

City of Hermiston v. Emp. Relations Bd., 557 P.2d 681 (Or. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “5 ORS 243.682 requires a representation petition filed with ERB to be accompanied by a 30 percent showing of interest.”

Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. Deschutes Cnty., 595 P.2d 501 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2× “The OSEA challenges ERB’s conclusion that the proposed bargaining unit is not an appropriate unit, contending that ERB erred by failing to base its conclusions and order on the criteria set forth in ORS 243.682(1). 1 We disagree. *376 The scope of our review of ERB’s order is…”

Welches Sch. Dist. No. 13 v. Welches Educ. Ass'n, 842 P.2d 437 (Or. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “682 provides, in part: “(3) [If] a question of representation exists, [the board] shall conduct an election by secret ballot, at a time and place convenient for the employees * * District asserts that neither that provision nor ORS 243.”

Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. U of O, 494 P.3d 993 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “After an employee raised concerns to a union steward about possible age discrimination in a particular department, a university human resources manager interviewed the employees in that department and wrote a report summarizing the interviews and his recommendations.”

Show all 29 citing cases →

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682(1) — 15 cases

Univ. of Oregon Chapter, AFT v. Univ. of Oregon, 759 P.2d 1112 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “" ORS 243.682(1) provides: "If a question of representation exists, the board shall: "(1) Upon application of a public employer, public employe or a labor organization, designate the appropriate bargaining unit, and in making its determination shall consider such factors as…”

Linn-Benton-Lincoln Educ. Ass'n/OEA/NEA v. Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD, 989 P.2d 25 (Or. Ct. App. 1999). “ORS 243.682(1). [1] If the interventionists are "academically licensed," as the phrase is used in ORS 243.”

Oregon Pub. Employées Union v. State, 22 P.3d 251 (Or. Ct. App. 2001). “682 provides, in part: “If a question of representation exists, [ERB] shall: “(1) Upon application of a public employer, public employee or a labor organization, designate the appropriate bargaining unit, and in making its determination shall consider such factors as community…”

Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill Cnty., 304 Or. App. 794 (Or. Ct. App. 2020). “650(1) (defin- ing “appropriate bargaining unit” to include “the unit des- ignated by [ERB] to be appropriate for the purpose of collec- tive bargaining”); ORS 243.682 (setting out procedures and criteria for ERB’s designation of group of employees as an “appropriate bargaining…”

Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. Deschutes Cnty., 595 P.2d 501 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “The OSEA challenges ERB’s conclusion that the proposed bargaining unit is not an appropriate unit, contending that ERB erred by failing to base its conclusions and order on the criteria set forth in ORS 243.682(1). 1 We disagree. *376 The scope of our review of ERB’s order is…”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682(1)(a) — 2 cases

Oregon Tech AAUP v. Oregon Inst. of Tech., 500 P.3d 55 (Or. Ct. App. 2021). “However, ERB did not make an appropriateness determination under ORS 243.682 in this case, and, accordingly, is not entitled to any deference associated with that function.”

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682(1)(e) — 1 case

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682(2) — 2 cases

Reynolds Sch. Dist. v. Oregon Sch. Employees Ass'n, 650 P.2d 119 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “See ORS 243.682 to 243.686. After a unit designation by ERB, an election is required to determine whether the majority in the unit wants representation and, if so, who is to be the bargaining representative.”

Oregon Ass'n of Classified Employees/NEA v. Eagle Point Sch. Dist. No. 9, 782 P.2d 432 (Or. Ct. App. 1989).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682(2)(a) — 2 cases

City of Portland Eng'g Employees Ass'n v. City of Portland, 608 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

Linn-Benton-Lincoln Educ. Ass'n/OEA/NEA v. Linn-Benton-Lincoln ESD, 954 P.2d 815 (Or. Ct. App. 1998).

— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.682(3) — 3 cases

Oregon Coll. of Educ. Fed'n of Teachers v. Emp. Relations Bd., 562 P.2d 552 (Or. Ct. App. 1977).

City of Portland Eng'g Employees Ass'n v. City of Portland, 608 P.2d 183 (Or. Ct. App. 1980).

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.