243.806
Agreement authorizing public employer to make deductions from salary or wages
of public employee; duties of public employer regarding deductions and
remittance; revoking authorization.
(1) A public employee may enter into an agreement with a labor organization
that is the exclusive representative to provide authorization for a public
employer to make a deduction from the salary or wages of the public employee,
in the manner described in subsection (4) of this section, to pay dues, fees
and any other assessments or authorized deductions to the labor organization or
its affiliated organizations or entities.
(2) A public
employer shall deduct the dues, fees and any other deduction authorized by a
public employee under this section and remit payment to the designated
organization or entity.
(3)(a) In
addition to making the deductions and payments to a labor organization or
entity described in subsection (1) of this section, a public employer shall
make deductions for and payments to a noncertified, yet bona fide, labor
organization, if so requested and authorized by a public employee, in the
manner described in subsection (4) of this section.
(b) The
deductions and payments made in accordance with this subsection shall not be
deemed an unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672.
(4)(a) A public
employee may provide authorization for the deductions described in this section
by telephonic communication or in writing, including by an electronic record or
electronic signature, as those terms are defined in ORS 84.004.
(b) A public
employee’s authorization is independent of the employee’s membership status in
the labor organization to which payment is remitted and irrespective of whether
a collective bargaining agreement authorizes the deduction.
(5)
Notwithstanding subsections (1) to (4) of this section, a collective bargaining
agreement between a labor organization and a public employer may authorize a
public employer to make a deduction from the salary or wages of a public
employee who is a member of the labor organization to pay dues, fees or other
assessments to the labor organization or its affiliated organizations or
entities.
(6) A public
employee’s authorization for a public employer to make a deduction under
subsections (1) to (4) of this section shall remain in effect until the public
employee revokes the authorization in the manner provided by the terms of the
agreement. If the terms of the agreement do not specify the manner in which a
public employee may revoke the authorized deduction, a public employee may
revoke authorization for the deduction by delivering an original signed,
written statement of revocation to the headquarters of the labor organization.
(7) A labor
organization shall provide to each public employer a list identifying the
public employees who have provided authorization for a public employer to make
deductions from the public employee’s salary or wages to pay dues, fees and any
other assessments or authorized deductions to the labor organization. A public
employer shall rely on the list to make the authorized deductions and to remit
payment to the labor organization within a time period that aligns with a
payroll processing schedule established by the employer not to exceed 30
calendar days following the date of the deduction.
(8)(a)
Notwithstanding subsection (10) of this section, a public employer that makes
deductions and payments in reliance on the list described in subsection (7) of
this section is not liable to a public employee for actual damages resulting
from an unauthorized deduction.
(b) A labor
organization that receives payment from a public employer shall defend and
indemnify the public employer for the amount of any unauthorized deduction
resulting from the public employer’s reliance on the list.
(9) If a labor
organization provides a public employer with the list described in subsection
(7) of this section and the employer fails to make an authorized deduction and
remit payment to the labor organization, the public employer is liable to the
labor organization, without recourse against the employee who authorized the
deduction, for the full amount that the employer failed to deduct and remit to
the labor organization.
(10)(a) If a
dispute arises between the public employee and the labor organization regarding
the existence, validity or revocation of an authorization for the deductions
and payment described under subsections (1) and (2) of this section, the
dispute shall be resolved through an unfair labor practice proceeding under ORS
243.672.
(b) A public
employer that makes unauthorized deductions or a labor organization that
receives payment in violation of the requirements of this section is liable to
the public employee for actual damages in an amount not to exceed the amount of
the unauthorized deductions. [2019 c.429 §6; 2025 c.270 §2]
CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE
OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS
Notes of Decisions
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2025).
· cites it 22× “672(2)(c) by violating ORS § 243.806(10) when Plaintiff asserted preempted state claims (fraud and state racketeering) against SEIU in Plaintiff’s federal court complaint, rather than by filing a ULP complaint with the ERB; and (3) that Plaintiff violated ORS § 243.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 21× “The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 21× “The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2021).
· cites it 9× “8 At oral argument SEIU raised for the first time the argument that the ERB proceeding involve mixed questions of law and fact, specifically that the ALJ also will need to resolve whether the ERB is the exclusive forum for determining whether a dues withdrawal agreement is valid…”
Cox v. Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees, Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
· cites it 9× “Cox and alleges a procedural due process violation and challenges the constitutionality of ORS 243.806, which sets out Oregon’s union dues deduction framework for public employees.”
Bright v. State of Oregon (9th Cir. 2025).
“Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 243.806 (1). A problem occurred because Oregon’s payroll software failed to process Bright’s removal from a list of employees who had provided authorization.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(1) — 3 cases
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Cox v. Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees, Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“Cox and alleges a procedural due process violation and challenges the constitutionality of ORS 243.806, which sets out Oregon’s union dues deduction framework for public employees.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(10) — 6 cases
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2025).
“672(2)(c) by violating ORS § 243.806(10) when Plaintiff asserted preempted state claims (fraud and state racketeering) against SEIU in Plaintiff’s federal court complaint, rather than by filing a ULP complaint with the ERB; and (3) that Plaintiff violated ORS § 243.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2021).
“8 At oral argument SEIU raised for the first time the argument that the ERB proceeding involve mixed questions of law and fact, specifically that the ALJ also will need to resolve whether the ERB is the exclusive forum for determining whether a dues withdrawal agreement is valid…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(10)(1) — 1 case
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2021).
“8 At oral argument SEIU raised for the first time the argument that the ERB proceeding involve mixed questions of law and fact, specifically that the ALJ also will need to resolve whether the ERB is the exclusive forum for determining whether a dues withdrawal agreement is valid…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(10)(a) — 5 cases
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2025).
“672(2)(c) by violating ORS § 243.806(10) when Plaintiff asserted preempted state claims (fraud and state racketeering) against SEIU in Plaintiff’s federal court complaint, rather than by filing a ULP complaint with the ERB; and (3) that Plaintiff violated ORS § 243.”
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2021).
“8 At oral argument SEIU raised for the first time the argument that the ERB proceeding involve mixed questions of law and fact, specifically that the ALJ also will need to resolve whether the ERB is the exclusive forum for determining whether a dues withdrawal agreement is valid…”
Cox v. Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees, Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“Cox and alleges a procedural due process violation and challenges the constitutionality of ORS 243.806, which sets out Oregon’s union dues deduction framework for public employees.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(2) — 3 cases
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Cox v. Ass'n of Oregon Corr. Employees, Inc. (D. Or. 2024).
“Cox and alleges a procedural due process violation and challenges the constitutionality of ORS 243.806, which sets out Oregon’s union dues deduction framework for public employees.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(6) — 4 cases
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2025).
“672(2)(c) by violating ORS § 243.806(10) when Plaintiff asserted preempted state claims (fraud and state racketeering) against SEIU in Plaintiff’s federal court complaint, rather than by filing a ULP complaint with the ERB; and (3) that Plaintiff violated ORS § 243.”
Trees v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union Local 503 (D. Or. 2021).
“8 At oral argument SEIU raised for the first time the argument that the ERB proceeding involve mixed questions of law and fact, specifically that the ALJ also will need to resolve whether the ERB is the exclusive forum for determining whether a dues withdrawal agreement is valid…”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 243.806(7) — 2 cases
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
Seiu Local 503, Opeu v. St (Or. Ct. App. 2024).
“The proponents of Section 6 of HB 2016 explained that the purpose of the provision was to “provide[ ] a clear and efficient dispute resolution process, through [ERB], for employees and unions to resolve disagreements over the status of deduction authorizations.”
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.