From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 31, 1981
50 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)

Opinion

No. C-28-80, CA 18932

Argued and submitted November 26, 1980

Affirmed January 26, 1981 Reconsideration denied March 4, 1981 Petition for review allowed March 31, 1981 ( 290 Or. 727)

Judicial Review from Employment Relations Board.

Stanton F. Long, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief were Timothy J. Sercombe, Orval Etter, A. Keith Martin, and Johnson, Harrang, Swanson Long, Eugene.

William N. Kent, Eugene, argued the cause for respondent Roseburg City Firefighters. With him on the brief was Gary K. Jensen, P.C., Eugene.

James M. Brown, Attorney General, John R. McCulloch, Solicitor General, William F. Gary, Deputy Solicitor General, and William F. Hoelscher, Assistant Attorney General, filed the brief for respondent Employment Relations Board.

Before Richardson, Presiding Judge, and Thornton and Buttler, Judges.


PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.


The city appeals a decision by the Employment Relations Board finding that the city committed an unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672(1)(e). The city refused to bargain with the firefighters in accordance with the Public Employes Collective Bargaining Act (ORS 243.650 to 243.682), and insisting instead that it was entitled to bargain under its own collective bargaining ordinance. The city ordinance differs from the statute in material respects. The principal distinction material to this case is that the ordinance does not provide for compulsory arbitration if the bargaining process reaches an impasse. The ordinance essentially provides that if the parties reach an impasse, the opposing offers will be submitted to the local electorate for a binding vote.

The city argues, in various ways, that its home rule powers would be unconstitutionally abridged if the state statute were held to preempt the ordinance. We conclude the issue is decided by the principles set out in Medford Firefighters Assn. v. City of Medford, 40 Or. App. 519, 595 P.2d 1268, rev den 287 Or. 507 (1979). See also LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or. 137, 576 P.2d 1204, aff'd on rehearing 284 Or. 173, 586 P.2d 765 (1978).

Affirmed.


Summaries of

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters

Oregon Court of Appeals
Mar 31, 1981
50 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
Case details for

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters

Case Details

Full title:CITY OF ROSEBURG et al, Petitioners, v. ROSEBURG CITY FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL…

Court:Oregon Court of Appeals

Date published: Mar 31, 1981

Citations

50 Or. App. 188 (Or. Ct. App. 1981)
622 P.2d 755

Citing Cases

City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters

Judicial Review from Employment Relations Board. 50 Or. App. 188, 622 P.2d 755 (1981). Timothy J. Sercombe,…

City of Pendleton v. Kerns

We reject this argument. See LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or. 137, 576 P.2d 1204 (1978); City of Roseburg v.…