Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.722 (2026)

Fact-finding procedure; costs; basis for findings and opinions; effect of subsequent arbitration decision

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      243.722 Fact-finding procedure; costs; basis for findings and opinions; effect of subsequent arbitration decision. (1) In carrying out the fact-finding procedures authorized in ORS 243.712 (2)(c), the public employer and the exclusive representative may select their own fact finder.

      (2)(a) Where the parties have not selected their own fact finder within five days after written acknowledgment by the Employment Relations Board that fact-finding has been jointly initiated, the board shall submit to the parties a list of seven qualified, disinterested, unbiased persons. A list of Oregon fact-finding interest arbitrations for which each person has issued an award shall be included. Each party shall alternately strike three names from the list. The order of striking shall be determined by lot. The remaining individual shall be designated the “fact finder.”

      (b) When both parties desire a panel of three fact finders instead of one as provided in this subsection, the board shall submit to the parties a list of seven qualified, unbiased, disinterested persons. Each party shall alternately strike two names from the list. The order of striking shall be determined by lot. The remaining three persons shall be designated “fact finders.”

      (c) When the parties have not designated the fact finder and notified the board of their choice within five days after receipt of the list, the board shall appoint the fact finder from the list. However, if one of the parties strikes the names as prescribed in this subsection and the other party fails to do so, the board shall appoint the fact finder only from the names remaining on the list.

      (d) The concerns regarding the bias and qualifications of the person designated by lot or by appointment may be challenged by a petition filed directly with the board. A hearing shall be held by the board within 10 days of filing the petition and the board shall issue a final and binding decision regarding the person’s neutrality within 10 days of the hearing.

      (3) The fact finder shall establish dates and places of hearings. Upon the request of either party or the fact finder, the board shall issue subpoenas. The fact finder may administer oaths and shall afford all parties full opportunity to examine and cross-examine all witnesses and to present any evidence pertinent to the dispute. Not more than 30 days from the date of conclusion of the hearings, the fact finder shall make written findings of fact and recommendations for resolution of the dispute and shall serve such findings and recommendations upon the parties and upon the board. Service may be personal or by registered or certified mail. Not more than five working days after the findings and recommendations have been sent, the parties shall notify the board and each other whether or not they accept the recommendations of the fact finder. If the parties do not accept them, the board, five days after receiving notice that one or both of the parties do not accept the findings, shall publicize the fact finder’s findings of facts and recommendations.

      (4) The parties may voluntarily agree at any time during or after fact-finding to submit any or all of the issues in dispute to final and binding arbitration, and if such agreement is reached prior to the publication of the fact finder’s findings of facts and recommendations, the board shall not publicize such findings and recommendations.

      (5) The cost of fact-finding shall be borne equally by the parties involved in the dispute.

      (6) Fact finders shall base their findings and opinions on the matters prescribed in this subsection in accordance with the criteria set out in ORS 243.746 (4)(a) to (h). [1973 c.536 §14; 1995 c.286 §7]

 

(Strikes)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases, 1975–1988 · leading case: City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981).
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981). · cites it 2× “Local 1489 requested initiation of factfinding by ERB under ORS 243.722. Roseburg instead initiated factfinding under its ordinances and requested ERB to defer to the municipal procedures.”
Circuit Court v. AFSCME Local 502-A, 669 P.2d 314 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “712; carry out factfinding, ORS 243.722; initiate binding arbitration, ORS 243.”
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 2× “When mediation failed to facilitate an agreement, ERB conducted fact-finding, pursuant to ORS 243.722, in May and June, 1979. On June 20, 1979, the union notified ERB that it did not accept the findings and requested arbitration.”
Wasco Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Local No. 2752, 569 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “” ORS 243.722(2) provides: "The factfinder shall establish dates and places of hearings.”
La Grande Police Ass'n v. Hamilton, 641 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 10× “ORS 243.722(3). As in the mediation phase, the parties during factfinding may choose to submit the dispute to binding arbitration.”
WASCO CTY. v. Am. Fed. of S., Cty. & Mun. Emp., 569 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “ORS 243.722(3) provides that not more than five working days after the factfinder's findings and recommendations have been sent, the parties shall notify each other and the Board whether or not they accept the recommendations of the factfinder.”
Willamina Educ. Ass'n v. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J, 623 P.2d 658 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “712(2)(c); ORS 243.722(4) and ORS 243.762. Therefore, we remand this case to ERB for a proper interpretation and application of the law.”
Oregon State Employes Ass'n v. State, 535 P.2d 1385 (Or. Ct. App. 1975). · cites it 2× “712 and ORS 243.722 had been complied with. The proposed *1388 strike is not in violation of any Oregon statute.”
Cascade Bargaining Council v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J, 732 P.2d 54 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 243.722(3). ORS 243.672(1) provides in part: “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 including an agreement to…”
State v. Fed'n of Oregon Parole & Prob. Officers, 758 P.2d 410 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “See ORS 243.722. The factfinder’s report, including provisions adding longevity pay steps, was accepted by the parties and formed the basis for their 1985-1987 contract.”
AFSCME Local 1246 v. Fairview Training Ctr., 724 P.2d 895 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). “On September 14, 1984, Fairview stated by letter to ERB that it would proceed with interest arbitration only with respect to “guard” employes'. Fairview reiterated that position in a subsequent October 9,1984, letter.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.722(2) — 1 case
Wasco Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Local No. 2752, 569 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “” ORS 243.722(2) provides: "The factfinder shall establish dates and places of hearings.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.722(3) — 4 cases
Wasco Cnty. v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty. & Mun. Employees, Local No. 2752, 569 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “” ORS 243.722(2) provides: "The factfinder shall establish dates and places of hearings.”
WASCO CTY. v. Am. Fed. of S., Cty. & Mun. Emp., 569 P.2d 15 (Or. Ct. App. 1977). “ORS 243.722(3) provides that not more than five working days after the factfinder's findings and recommendations have been sent, the parties shall notify each other and the Board whether or not they accept the recommendations of the factfinder.”
La Grande Police Ass'n v. Hamilton, 641 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 243.722(3). As in the mediation phase, the parties during factfinding may choose to submit the dispute to binding arbitration.”
Cascade Bargaining Council v. Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 509-J, 732 P.2d 54 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 243.722(3). ORS 243.672(1) provides in part: “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 including an agreement to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.722(4) — 2 cases
La Grande Police Ass'n v. Hamilton, 641 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “ORS 243.722(3). As in the mediation phase, the parties during factfinding may choose to submit the dispute to binding arbitration.”
Willamina Educ. Ass'n v. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J, 623 P.2d 658 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “712(2)(c); ORS 243.722(4) and ORS 243.762. Therefore, we remand this case to ERB for a proper interpretation and application of the law.”
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.