Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.736 (2026)

Strikes by deputy district attorneys, assistant attorneys general and certain emergency and public safety personnel

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

      243.736 Strikes by deputy district attorneys, assistant attorneys general and certain emergency and public safety personnel. (1) It is unlawful for any of the following public employees to strike or recognize a picket line of a labor organization while in the performance of official duties:

      (a) Assistant attorneys general;

      (b) Deputy district attorneys;

      (c) Emergency communications worker;

      (d) Employee of the Oregon Youth Authority who has custody, control or supervision of adjudicated youths;

      (e) Firefighter;

      (f) Guard at a correctional institution or mental hospital;

      (g) Parole and probation officer who supervises adult offenders; and

      (h) Police officer.

      (2) As used in this section, “emergency communications worker” means an individual whose official focal duties are receiving information through the emergency communications system under ORS 403.105 to 403.250, relaying the information to public or private safety agencies or dispatching emergency equipment or personnel in response to the information. [1973 c.536 §17; 1985 c.232 §1; 1989 c.793 §20; 2003 c.216 §1; 2007 c.646 §1; 2009 c.376 §1; 2015 c.247 §33; 2019 c.242 §1; 2021 c.489 §24]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1979–2013 · leading case: Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 28× “742 [3] because they are forbidden from striking either as "guards" or "policemen" within the language of ORS 243.736 [4] or because they are "included in an appropriate bargaining unit which provides for resolution of labor disputes by referral to binding arbitration" under ORS…”
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981). · cites it 6× “Of particular significance in this case, firemen and certain other public safety employees are forbidden from striking, ORS 243.736, and issues which are unresolved by bargaining and mediation are subject to compulsory binding arbitration administered by ERB.”
Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. Re-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992). · cites it 2× “14(D)(1) (Page 1991) (prohibiting police, fire, emergency or medical personnel, employees of the state schools for the deaf and blind, employees of the state retirement system, correctional officials, and penal or mental institution employees from striking); Or.Rev.Stat. §…”
State v. Camarena, 176 P.3d 380 (Or. 2008). “735 defines “emergency telephone workers” using the definition found in ORS 243.736(2), which provides: “As used in this section, ‘emergency telephone worker’ means a person whose official focal duties are receiving information through a 9-1-1 emergency reporting system under…”
Medford Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1431 v. City of Medford, 595 P.2d 1268 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “Of particular significance here is ORS 243.736, which prohibits strikes by firemen, policemen and certain guards.”
City of Canby v. Canby Police Assoc., 680 P.2d 1033 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 2× “726(1), and police officers, who are forbidden by ORS 243.736 from striking. 1 We affirm. Appellate review is governed by ORS 183.”
AFSCME Local 2505 v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 755 P.2d 148 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 6× “Significantly,fERB has previously held that certain other employes who are subject to those provisions are not police officers for purposes of ORS 243.736. See Teamsters Local No. 324 v.”
State of Oregon, Dep't of Human Resources, Mental Health & Developmental Disability Servs. Div. v. AFSCME Council 75, 866 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 18× “, supra, we held that the policy behind the absolute prohibition on striking under ORS 243.736 is the protection of public safety.”
Multnomah Cnty. Corr. Deputy Ass'n v. Multnomah Cnty., 308 P.3d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 6× “650(7)(f), which, again, provides, as pertinent: “For employee bargaininginvolving employees covered by ORS 243.736,[ 5 ] ‘employment relations’ includes safety issues that have an impact on the on-the-job safety of the employees[.”
Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees v. State, 164 P.3d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Moreover, the state’s last best offers regarding the wage freeze did not involve permissive subjects of bargaining. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the state did not comply with the statutory duty to bargain in good faith.”
Brooks v. City of Beaverton, 679 P.2d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “Arbitration is not only a permissible method of resolving collective bargaining disputes for public employes but when, as here, the employes are prohibited from striking, ORS 243.736, the legislature has provided for compulsory arbitration.”
AFSCME Local 1246 v. Fairview Training Ctr., 724 P.2d 895 (Or. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 2× “Police officers, firefighters and guards at a correctional institution or mental hospital are prohibited from striking by ORS 243.736. The Board issued a cease and desist order and also ordered Fairview to arbitrate its labor dispute with the entire bargaining unit, ORS 243.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.736(1) — 3 cases
State of Oregon, Dep't of Human Resources, Mental Health & Developmental Disability Servs. Div. v. AFSCME Council 75, 866 P.2d 498 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “, supra, we held that the policy behind the absolute prohibition on striking under ORS 243.736 is the protection of public safety.”
AFSCME Local 2505 v. Oregon Liquor Control Comm'n, 755 P.2d 148 (Or. Ct. App. 1988). “Significantly,fERB has previously held that certain other employes who are subject to those provisions are not police officers for purposes of ORS 243.736. See Teamsters Local No. 324 v.”
Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees v. State, 164 P.3d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “Moreover, the state’s last best offers regarding the wage freeze did not involve permissive subjects of bargaining. Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the state did not comply with the statutory duty to bargain in good faith.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.736(2) — 1 case
State v. Camarena, 176 P.3d 380 (Or. 2008). “735 defines “emergency telephone workers” using the definition found in ORS 243.736(2), which provides: “As used in this section, ‘emergency telephone worker’ means a person whose official focal duties are receiving information through a 9-1-1 emergency reporting system under…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.736(e) — 1 case
Multnomah Cnty. Corr. Deputy Ass'n v. Multnomah Cnty., 308 P.3d 230 (Or. Ct. App. 2013). “650(7)(f), which, again, provides, as pertinent: “For employee bargaininginvolving employees covered by ORS 243.736,[ 5 ] ‘employment relations’ includes safety issues that have an impact on the on-the-job safety of the employees[.”
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.