114 Or. App. 214 834 P.2d 519

Argued and submitted March 16,

affirmed July 8,

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration allowed by opinion October 14, 1992

See 116 Or App 572, 841 P2d 704 (1992)

FEDERATION OF OREGON PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS, Respondent, v. STATE OF OREGON, CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, Petitioner.

(UP-117-89; CA A69143)

834 P2d 519

Harrison Latto, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem,

Daryl S. Garrettson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William J. Gibbons and Aitchison, Hoag, Vick & Tarantino, Portland.

Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*215PER CURIAM

Oregon State Department of Corrections (Department) seeks judicial review of final order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB). ERB determined that Department had committed an unfair labor practice, ORS 243.672(l)(e), when it refused to bargain with the Federation of Oregon Parole and Probation Officers, the collective bargaining representative of Department’s employees, before requiring an employee to submit to a drug test.

ERB relied on our opinion in Tualatin Valley Bargaining v. Tigard School Dist., 106 Or App 381, 808 P2d 101, rev allowed 312 Or 16 (1991), in holding that mandatory drug testing is a “matter concerning” employee discipline and job security, which are “other conditions of employment” within the meaning of ORS 243.650(7),1 thus making the testing a mandatory subject for bargaining. Department contends that we erred in that case by interpreting Portland Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Portland, 305 Or 275, 751 P2d 770 (1988), to have modified the analysis in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or 217, 621 P2d 547 (1980), to determine whether balancing was required.

Although we do not believe that we did that in Tualatin Valley, unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, that case controls.

Affirmed.

Federation of Oregon Parole & Probation Officers v. State of Corrections Department
114 Or. App. 214 834 P.2d 519

Case Details

Name
Federation of Oregon Parole & Probation Officers v. State of Corrections Department
Decision Date
Jul 8, 1992
Citations

114 Or. App. 214

834 P.2d 519

Jurisdiction
Oregon

References

Referencing

Nothing yet... Still searching!

Referenced By

Nothing yet... Still searching!