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

Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.742 (2026)

Binding arbitration when strike prohibited

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

      243.742 Binding arbitration when strike prohibited. (1) It is the public policy of the State of Oregon that where the right of employees to strike is by law prohibited, it is requisite to the high morale of such employees and the efficient operation of such departments to afford an alternate, expeditious, effective and binding procedure for the resolution of labor disputes and to that end the provisions of ORS 240.060, 240.065, 240.080, 240.123, 243.650 to 243.809 and 341.290, providing for compulsory arbitration, shall be liberally construed.

      (2) When the procedures set forth in ORS 243.712 and 243.722, relating to mediation of a labor dispute, have not culminated in a signed agreement between the parties who are prohibited from striking, the public employer and exclusive representative of its employees shall include with the final offer filed with the mediator a petition to the Employment Relations Board in writing that initiates binding arbitration for bargaining units with employees referred to in ORS 243.736 or 243.738. Arbitration shall be scheduled by mutual agreement not earlier than 30 days following the submission of the final offer packages to the mediator. Arbitration shall be scheduled in accordance with the procedures prescribed in ORS 243.746. [1973 c.536 §18; 1995 c.286 §9; 2017 c.496 §6; 2019 c.429 §14]

 

      243.745 [1969 c.671 §6; repealed by 1973 c.536 §39]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases, 1978–2014 · leading case: City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981). · cites it 12× “ORS 243.742. Roseburg adopted its Ordinance No.”
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 20× “The appeal by the local chapters of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employes (AFSCME) raises the substantive issue of whether certain members of these locals are entitled to the benefits of binding interest arbitration pursuant to ORS 243.742 [3] because…”
Circuit Court v. AFSCME Local 502-A, 669 P.2d 314 (Or. 1983). · cites it 2× “722; initiate binding arbitration, ORS 243.742; conduct proceedings on complaints of unfair labor practices by employers, employes and labor unions, adopt rules and monitor elections, ORS 243.”
Medford Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1431 v. City of Medford, 595 P.2d 1268 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 3× “Pursuant to ORS 243.742, 243.746 and 243.752, the arbitrator prepared an agreement and submitted it to the parties for their signatures.”
Eugene Educ. Ass'n v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 648 P.2d 60 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). “In AFSCME, arbitration was conducted pursuant to statutory procedures applicable when strikes are prohibited, ORS 243.742 et seq., and not pursuant to a contractual arbitration provision.”
AFSCME Council 75, Local 350 v. Clackamas Cnty., 687 P.2d 1102 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). ““Under ORS 243.742(1), for certain state employes, binding, compulsory arbitration is the mandated alternative to a strike over a labor dispute.”
La Grande Police Ass'n v. Hamilton, 641 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× ““The provisions for voluntary arbitration, coupled with the fact that ORS 243.742 provides for forced arbitration only when the procedure set forth in ORS 243.”
Int'l Ass'n of Fire Fighters, Local 3564 v. City of Grants Pass, 326 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2014). “ORS 243.742; ORS 243.746. That arbitrator has the power to issue a written opinion and order implementing whichever offer the arbitrator finds best meets the criteria listed in ORS 243.”
Siegel v. Gresham Grade Teachers Ass'n, 574 P.2d 692 (Or. Ct. App. 1978). “-SfecORS 243.742. ERB’s policy of adhering to arbitration decisions in subsequent related proceedings advances the legislative purpose and is therefore a proper exercise of its authority to administer the PERA.”
Brooks v. City of Beaverton, 679 P.2d 343 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). “ORS 243.742. Plaintiff next argues that he did comply with the collective bargaining agreement, because he acted within 15 days of his actual knowledge of the dispute.”
Tracy v. Lane Cnty., 739 P.2d 64 (Or. Ct. App. 1987). “ORS 243.742 et seq. The collective bargaining agreement expired on July 1,1984.”
Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees v. State, 164 P.3d 291 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). “ORS 243.742. The procedures for arbitration in this context are not the normal arbitration procedures.”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.742(1) — 4 cases
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981). “ORS 243.742. Roseburg adopted its Ordinance No.”
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The appeal by the local chapters of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employes (AFSCME) raises the substantive issue of whether certain members of these locals are entitled to the benefits of binding interest arbitration pursuant to ORS 243.742 [3] because…”
Medford Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1431 v. City of Medford, 595 P.2d 1268 (Or. Ct. App. 1979). “Pursuant to ORS 243.742, 243.746 and 243.752, the arbitrator prepared an agreement and submitted it to the parties for their signatures.”
AFSCME Council 75, Local 350 v. Clackamas Cnty., 687 P.2d 1102 (Or. Ct. App. 1984). ““Under ORS 243.742(1), for certain state employes, binding, compulsory arbitration is the mandated alternative to a strike over a labor dispute.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.742(2) — 3 cases
City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, Local No. 1489, 639 P.2d 90 (Or. 1981). “ORS 243.742. Roseburg adopted its Ordinance No.”
Am. Fed'n of State v. Exec. Dep't, 628 P.2d 1228 (Or. Ct. App. 1981). “The appeal by the local chapters of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employes (AFSCME) raises the substantive issue of whether certain members of these locals are entitled to the benefits of binding interest arbitration pursuant to ORS 243.742 [3] because…”
La Grande Police Ass'n v. Hamilton, 641 P.2d 1132 (Or. Ct. App. 1982). ““The provisions for voluntary arbitration, coupled with the fact that ORS 243.742 provides for forced arbitration only when the procedure set forth in ORS 243.”
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.