Case ID: or-app_50/html/0188-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Argued and submitted November, 26, 1980,
    affirmed January 26,
    reconsideration denied March 4,
    petition for review allowed March 31, 1981 (290 Or 727)
    CITY OF ROSEBURG et al, Petitioners, v. ROSEBURG CITY FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL NO. 1489 et al, Respondents.
    
    (No. C-28-80, CA 18932)
    622 P2d 755
    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.
   PER CURIAM.

The city appeals' a decision by the Employment Relations Board finding that the city committed an unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672(l)(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 P2d 1268, rev den 287 Or 507 (1979). See also LaGrande/Astoria v. PERB, 281 Or 137, 576 P2d 1204, aff’d on rehearing 284 Or 173, 586 P2d 765 (1978).

Affirmed.