Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.698

Expedited bargaining process; notice; implementation of proposed changes

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

      243.698 Expedited bargaining process; notice; implementation of proposed changes. (1) When the employer is obligated to bargain over employment relations during the term of a collective bargaining agreement and the exclusive representative demands to bargain, the bargaining may not, without the consent of both parties and provided the parties have negotiated in good faith, continue past 90 calendar days after the date the notification specified in subsection (2) of this section is received.

      (2) The employer shall notify the exclusive representative in writing of anticipated changes that impose a duty to bargain.

      (3) Within 14 calendar days after the employer’s notification of anticipated changes specified in subsection (2) of this section is sent, the exclusive representative may file a demand to bargain. If a demand to bargain is not filed within 14 days of the notice, the exclusive representative waives its right to bargain over the change or the impact of the change identified in the notice.

      (4) The expedited bargaining process shall cease 90 calendar days after the written notice described in subsection (2) of this section is sent, and the employer may implement the proposed changes without further obligations to bargain. At any time during the 90-day period, the parties jointly may agree to mediation, but that mediation shall not continue past the 90-day period from the date the notification specified in subsection (2) of this section is sent. Neither party may seek binding arbitration during the 90-day period. [1995 c.286 §13]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2023 · leading case: Portland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 43, IAFF v. City of Portland
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Portland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 43, IAFF v. City of Portland (2011) orctapp · cites it 6× “672(l)(e) and (f) by refusing to bargain with the Portland Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 43, IAFF (association) about the impacts of a return-to-work program for permanently disabled fire fighters and by refusing to comply with the notification and bargaining procedures of…”
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State (2013) or · cites it 4× “” DOC also alleged as a separate affirmative defense that AOCE had waived its right to bargain by failing to file a timely demand, as required by ORS 243.698(3). ERB first determined that “scheduling the particular hours of the day and days of the week that an employee is…”
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland (2020) orctapp · cites it 9× “The union brought this proceeding, contending that ORS 243.698 required the city to notify the union in writing of the anticipated changes, that the failure to send the notice constituted a failure or refusal to bargain over the changes, and that the city has continued to commit…”
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State (2014) orctapp · cites it 9× “ORS 243.698 provides, in part: “(1) When the employer is obligated to bargain over employment relations during the term of a collective *415 bargaining agreement and the exclusive representative demands to bargain, the bargaining may not, without the consent of both parties and…”
BEAVERTON POLICE ASSOC. v. City of Beaverton (2004) orctapp · cites it 6× “ORS 243.698 provides, in part, that an employer must ‘notify the exclusive representative in writing of anticipated changes that impose a duty to bargain’ and ‘[i]f a demand to bargain is not filed * * * the exclusive representative waives its right to bargain over the change or…”
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State (2006) orctapp · cites it 2× “DOC seeks judicial review of ERB’s order, contending that ERB erred in concluding that DOC committed an unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672(l)(e) in refusing to bargain over the schedule changes involving days off and start/stop times for shifts.”
Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Service Board (2004) orctapp “See ORS 243.698(4) (after the bargaining process has ended, an employer may implement its proposed changes without any farther obligation to bargain).”
Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Service Board (2006) orctapp “ORS 243.698. If the union objects to that action it may file a complaint with ERB asserting that the district has committed an unfair labor practice.”
Three Rivers Education Ass'n v. Three Rivers School District (2013) orctapp · cites it 2× “672(l)(e), and failing to timely notify the association of the possibility of an increase in student-contact time and workload, ORS 243.698(2); ORS 243.672(l)(f). 3 An *574 administrative law judge (ALJ) heard the case and issued a proposed order concluding that predecision…”
Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. State of Oregon (2013) or · cites it 4× “” DOC also alleged as a separate affirmative defense that AOCE had waived its right to bargain by failing to file a timely demand, as required by ORS 243.698(3). ERB first determined that “scheduling the particular hours of the day and days of the week that an employee is assigned…”
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, Council 75 v. City of Portland (2016) orctapp “ORS 243.698(2). It is an unfair labor practice for a public employer or its designated representative to “ [r] efuse to bargain collectively in good faith” over mandatory subjects of bargaining.”
Multnomah Cty. v. Mult. Cty. Corrections Deputy Assn. (2022) orctapp “, or any question arising there- under, and the execution of a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party] for the purpose of negotiations concerning mandatory subjects 6 With respect to those 1995 amendments, the county makes three…”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.698(2) — 6 cases
BEAVERTON POLICE ASSOC. v. City of Beaverton (2004) orctapp “ORS 243.698 provides, in part, that an employer must ‘notify the exclusive representative in writing of anticipated changes that impose a duty to bargain’ and ‘[i]f a demand to bargain is not filed * * * the exclusive representative waives its right to bargain over the change or…”
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State (2014) orctapp “ORS 243.698 provides, in part: “(1) When the employer is obligated to bargain over employment relations during the term of a collective *415 bargaining agreement and the exclusive representative demands to bargain, the bargaining may not, without the consent of both parties and…”
Portland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 43, IAFF v. City of Portland (2011) orctapp “672(l)(e) and (f) by refusing to bargain with the Portland Fire Fighters’ Association, Local 43, IAFF (association) about the impacts of a return-to-work program for permanently disabled fire fighters and by refusing to comply with the notification and bargaining procedures of…”
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland (2020) orctapp “The union brought this proceeding, contending that ORS 243.698 required the city to notify the union in writing of the anticipated changes, that the failure to send the notice constituted a failure or refusal to bargain over the changes, and that the city has continued to commit…”
Three Rivers Education Ass'n v. Three Rivers School District (2013) orctapp “672(l)(e), and failing to timely notify the association of the possibility of an increase in student-contact time and workload, ORS 243.698(2); ORS 243.672(l)(f). 3 An *574 administrative law judge (ALJ) heard the case and issued a proposed order concluding that predecision…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.698(3) — 4 cases
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State (2013) or “” DOC also alleged as a separate affirmative defense that AOCE had waived its right to bargain by failing to file a timely demand, as required by ORS 243.698(3). ERB first determined that “scheduling the particular hours of the day and days of the week that an employee is…”
Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland (2020) orctapp “The union brought this proceeding, contending that ORS 243.698 required the city to notify the union in writing of the anticipated changes, that the failure to send the notice constituted a failure or refusal to bargain over the changes, and that the city has continued to commit…”
Association of Oregon Corrections Employees v. State (2014) orctapp “ORS 243.698 provides, in part: “(1) When the employer is obligated to bargain over employment relations during the term of a collective *415 bargaining agreement and the exclusive representative demands to bargain, the bargaining may not, without the consent of both parties and…”
Assn. of Oregon Corrections Emp. v. State of Oregon (2013) or “” DOC also alleged as a separate affirmative defense that AOCE had waived its right to bargain by failing to file a timely demand, as required by ORS 243.698(3). ERB first determined that “scheduling the particular hours of the day and days of the week that an employee is assigned…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.698(4) — 1 case
Scherzinger v. Portland Custodians Civil Service Board (2004) orctapp “See ORS 243.698(4) (after the bargaining process has ended, an employer may implement its proposed changes without any farther obligation to bargain).”
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.