Case Title: Washington Cty. Police Assn. v. Washington Cty.

Citation: 

Docket Number: S49518

State: oregon

Court: Oregon Supreme Court

Date: 2003-02-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Filed: February 21, 2003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

WASHINGTON COUNTY POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
and PAUL CUFF,
	Petitioners on Review,
	v.
WASHINGTON COUNTY,
	Respondent on Review.
(ERB UP-76-99; CA A114208; SC S49518)

	On review from the Court of Appeals.*
	Argued and submitted November 6, 2002.
	Jaime B. Goldberg, of Garrettson, Goldberg, Fenrich &
Makler, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for
petitioners on review.
	Sheryl Hayashida, Senior Assistant County Counsel for
Washington County, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the
briefs for respondent on review.
	Barbara J. Diamond, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond & Olney,
Portland, filed a brief for amici curiae AFSCME Council 75, Oregon Education
Association and Portland Fire Fighters' Association.
	Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs,
De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**
	GILLETTE, J.	
	The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The case
is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.
	*Judicial Review from the Employment Relations Board. 181 Or App 448, 45 P3d 515 (2002).
    **Leeson, J., resigned January 31, 2003, and did not
participate in the decision of this case.	
		GILLETTE, J.
		This is an unfair labor practice case in which the
dispositive issue is whether an arbitration award that ordered
the reinstatement of a county public safety employee who admitted
to possessing and using marijuana while off duty complies with
"public policy requirements as clearly defined in statutes or
judicial decisions."  ORS 243.706(1).   The Employment Relations
Board (ERB) concluded that the award did comply, because it did
not violate any clearly defined contrary public policy.  The
Court of Appeals reversed.  Washington Cty. Police Assn. v.
Washington Cty., 181 Or App 448, 45 P3d 515 (2002).  That court
held that reinstating the employee was contrary to public policy
and, thus, that the reinstatement award was unenforceable.  We
allowed review and now hold that, under the facts presented,
reinstating the employee does not violate any "public policy
requirement[] as clearly defined in statutes or judicial
decisions."  Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of
Appeals and remand the matter to that court for further
consideration.  
		We take the following undisputed facts from the
decision of the Court of Appeals and from the record.  The
parties to this case are Washington County (the county), one of
its employees, Paul Cuff (the employee), and the union that
represents the employee, the Washington County Police Officers'
Association (the association).  The employee is a deputy sheriff
for the county and a member of the bargaining unit represented by
the association.  When the present dispute arose, the employee
was working as a corrections officer in the county's transport
division, driving inmates into and out of the county in a
commercial-sized bus.  Federal law requires the county to test
all such employees operating commercial motor vehicles for drug
use.  49 CFR § 382.  
		In January 1999, the county directed the employee to
take a urine drug-screening test.  The result of the test was
positive for marijuana.  When a medical examiner confronted the
employee with the results of the test, the employee initially
denied using illegal drugs, claiming that the positive result was
due to his ingestion of certain herbal supplements.  The employee
later recanted and told some fellow employees that he had been
smoking marijuana off duty nearly every day for a month before
the test.  The county referred the matter for investigation. 
During interviews with an investigator, the employee initially
stated that he had last used marijuana about a week before the
test.  After being informed that the chemical levels in his urine
were inconsistent with drug use that far in the past, the
employee responded that his most recent use could have been as
few as three or four days before the test.  The investigator's
report concluded that the employee had bought and consumed
marijuana illegally, that he had committed those violations off
duty, that there was no evidence that he had reported to work
under the influence of any controlled substance, that he
initially had lied about the reason for the positive test result,
and that his statements about when and how much marijuana he had
used were inconsistent with the results of the urinalysis. 
		The county fired the employee.  The county listed
several factors as the basis for that action, including that the
employee had violated sheriff's office policies by unlawfully
using marijuana, was unfit for duty, had engaged in unlawful
acts, had provided false information to another person in the
sheriff's office, and had provided false information on an
official report or statement.  
	 	When the county fired the employee, there was in force
a collective bargaining agreement between the county and the
association.  That agreement governed, among other things,
conditions of discipline and an employee's right to recourse for
violations of the agreement.  Article 39, section 6, of that
agreement provided that an employee who tests positive for the
use of illegal drugs "shall be referred to an employee assistance
program or drug and alcohol counseling."  The same section
further provided that the employee "may not be disciplined for
the use of illegal drugs" unless the employee previously had
tested positive for the use of illegal drugs or refused to
participate in the employee assistance program or counseling. 
Other provisions of the collective bargaining agreement permitted
employees to file grievances for violations of the terms of the
agreement, required that such grievances be submitted to
arbitration, and provided that the arbitrator's decision would be
final and binding. 
		 In the present case, the association filed a grievance
on the employee's behalf, alleging that the county's termination
of the employee for his first positive drug test was a violation
of Article 39, section 6, of the collective bargaining agreement
and, therefore, constituted an unfair labor practice under ORS
243.672(1)(g). (1)  
		The arbitrator agreed with the employee that the county
had violated the agreement when it fired the employee.  In
addition, the arbitrator rejected the county's contention that
the employee's untruthfulness about his marijuana use itself
provided just cause for his dismissal, concluding that the
employee's changing his story during the course of the
investigation "does not constitute a sufficient modification or
lying under oath to merit removal."  The arbitrator ordered the
employee reinstated as a deputy sheriff but did not award him
back pay.  The result of that refusal to make the reinstatement
retroactive was to reduce the employee's penalty for his
misconduct from termination to a seven-month suspension without
pay.  
		The county refused to reinstate the employee.  The
association and the employee then initiated a proceeding before
ERB, asserting that the county's refusal to accept the terms of
the arbitration award was an unfair labor practice under ORS
243.672(1)(g).  The county responded that the arbitration award
ordering the employee's reinstatement did not "comply with public
policy" as ORS 243.706(1) (2) uses that phrase and, therefore, the
county's refusal to accept the award was not an unfair labor
practice.
		ERB rejected the county's "public policy" argument and
held that the county had committed an unfair labor practice under
ORS 243.672(1)(g) when it refused to accept the terms of the
arbitration award.  In so holding, ERB stated:  
	"[T]he award reinstating the [employee] does not
violate any clearly defined public policy.  Although
there is a public policy prohibiting illegal drug use
by employees (like grievant) holding safety-sensitive
positions, there are also public policies that
encourage rehabilitation of employees who test positive
for drugs and that favor the finality of labor
arbitration awards.  The award here severely
disciplines [the employee], orders appropriate drug
counseling, and does not require his reinstatement to a
safety-sensitive position.  Under these circumstances,
the award ordering his reinstatement does not violate
public policy prohibiting such drug use.  We also
conclude that the award ordering reinstatement does not
violate any alleged policy against 'dishonesty' in the
law enforcement workplace.  Neither the authority cited
to us nor the factual findings of the arbitrator
support a determination that the award is unenforceable
on this ground."  
		The county sought judicial review of ERB's decision in
the Court of Appeals.  There, the county repeated its arguments
that clearly defined public policies against both illegal drug
use and dishonesty by public employees preclude the employee's
reinstatement.  In addition, the county contended that ERB had
erred in excluding certain testimony that the county had offered
in an attempt to flesh out the existence and scope of pertinent
public policy, as well as to explain the severity of the
employee's conduct. 
		As noted, the Court of Appeals reversed.  That court
held that ORS 181.662 (1999) constituted a relevant public policy
against the continued employment of a deputy sheriff who has
unlawfully possessed and used a controlled substance.  That
statute, which was in effect at the time that the employee
possessed and used marijuana, provided, in part: 
		"(3) The [Department of Public Safety Standards
and Training (DPSST)] shall deny or revoke the
certification of any public safety officer * * * after
written notice and hearing * * * based upon a finding
that:
		"* * * * *
		"(c) The public safety officer * * * has been
convicted of violating any law of this state or any
other jurisdiction involving the unlawful use,
possession, delivery or manufacture of a controlled
substance, narcotic or dangerous drug." (3)   
		The Court of Appeals began its analysis by noting that
the employee is a public safety officer and that marijuana was
and is a controlled substance, the possession of which is
punishable by conviction and fine.  Washington Cty. Police Assn.,
181 Or App at 454.  It followed, in that court's view, that ORS
181.662(3) (1999), by mandating decertification of public safety
officers who use controlled substances in certain circumstances,
is a clear statement of public policy against the continued
employment of such officers.  Id. at 455.  Based on that view of
the statute, the court concluded that the award ordering the
employee's reinstatement was unenforceable, because it failed to
comply with the public policy expressed in ORS 181.662 (1999). 
Id.  Consequently, according to the Court of Appeals, the
county's refusal to reinstate the employee was not an unfair
labor practice, notwithstanding the fact that, by firing the
employee, the county violated the collective bargaining
agreement.  Id. (4) 
		The association and the employee sought review of the
Court of Appeals' decision on the ground, among others, that ORS
181.662(3) (1999) does not "clearly define" public policy
relevant to the employee's reinstatement.  We allowed review.
		We begin our analysis, as did the Court of Appeals, by
considering the words of ORS 243.706(1):  "As a condition of
enforceability, any arbitration award * * * shall comply with
public policy requirements as clearly defined in statutes or
judicial decisions."  The Court of Appeals correctly observed
that, by its unambiguous terms, that statute "dictate[s] that the
public policy analysis be directed at the arbitration award
itself, not the conduct for which discipline was imposed."  181
Or App at 452.  Thus, the enforceability of the arbitrator's
award does not turn on whether the employee's purchase and
personal use of marijuana or being dishonest about it in response
to the positive drug test violated some public policy.  The
proper inquiry, instead, is whether the award itself complies
with the specified kind of public policy requirements.  In other
words, does an award ordering reinstatement of an employee who
has purchased and used marijuana and then been dishonest about it
fail to comply with some public policy requirements that are
clearly defined in the statute or judicial decision?  If the
reinstatement fails to comply with public policy requirements in
that way, then it is unenforceable. 
		Before we can answer that question, we first must
consider what public policy requirements are relevant to our
analysis.  Under ORS 243.706(1), the only sources that we may
consult regarding relevant public policy requirements are
statutes and judicial decisions.  Thus, under the statute's
express terms, we may not turn to statements of public policy
that, arguably, we might find in administrative rules, employment
manuals, office policies, or proclamations by administrative
officials.  Moreover, the public policy requirements must be
"clearly defined."  "Defined" means "clearly outlined,
characterized, or delimited."  Webster's Third New Int'l
Dictionary 592 (unabridged ed 1993).  "Clearly" means "1: in a
clear manner * * * 2: of something asserted or observed : without
doubt or question."  Id. at 420.  Therefore, to be pertinent to
our analysis, a statute or judicial decision must outline,
characterize, or delimit a public policy in such a way as to
leave no serious doubt or question respecting the content or
import of that policy. 
		The Court of Appeals held that ORS 181.662(3) (1999)
contained such a clear definition of public policy.  As described
above, that statute mandated denial or revocation of the
certification of any public safety officer, after written notice
and a hearing, upon a finding that he or she had been convicted
of violating, among other things, any law involving the unlawful
use or possession of a controlled substance.  The Court of
Appeals concluded that that statute constituted a "clear
statement of public policy against the continued certification of
public safety officers who use controlled substances, including
marijuana."  181 Or App at 454.  The court acknowledged that
neither the county nor the state had provided the employee with
notice or a hearing respecting his certification, nor had the
employee been convicted of any offense.  Nonetheless, the court
concluded that those facts did not "mitigate the public policy
statement embodied in the statute, that is, that public safety
officers who use marijuana should not be certified."  181 Or App
at 455. 
		Of course, whether or not the employee should continue
to be certified is not the question; the award addresses the
employee's reinstatement.  But ORS 181.662(3) (1999) is not a
statute about employment or reinstatement.  Moreover, and even if
the employee's certification were at issue in this case, it does
not appear that the employee's certification as a public safety
officer has been or could be revoked on the basis of his
marijuana use, unless and until he had been convicted of such
use.  Therefore, and even accepting the proposition that ORS
181.662(3) (1999) defined a public policy concerning the
continued certification of a public safety officer who has been
convicted of drug-related offenses, we do not agree that that
statute defined a clear public policy respecting the continued
certification of a public safety officer who has not been
convicted of any offense.  A fortiori, the statute does not
define a clear public policy respecting the separate question of
such an officer's reinstatement.  
 		From the foregoing, the difficulty with the Court of
Appeals' analysis is obvious.  As noted, ORS 243.706(1) permits a
party subject to an otherwise valid arbitrator's award to refuse
to accept that award only if the award fails to comply with
public policy requirements that are "clearly" defined, that is,
delimited in such a way as to leave no serious doubt as to their
terms.  ORS 181.662(3) is not the source of such a policy
respecting the facts of this case.  The statute's scope of
application, which is limited to convictions alone, demonstrates
our point:  If the legislature meant to express a policy against
use, rather than conviction, it would have been easy to do so. 
Because it did not do so, we cannot say that the public policy
requirement on which the Court of Appeals relied exists at all,
much less is "clearly" defined, as that phrase is used in ORS
243.706(1).
		As an alternative, but related, argument, the county
suggests that the employee's conduct in purchasing and using
marijuana off the job is "serious criminal misconduct, related to
work," which ORS 243.706(1) specifically enumerates as an example
of a clearly defined public policy that preludes reinstatement. 
However, ERB observed that the quantity of marijuana involved
amounted only to a violation, punishable solely by a fine.  See
ORS 475.992(4)(f) (so providing).  In addition, there was
evidence at the arbitration hearing that no one in Oregon had
been or would likely be prosecuted for a similar offense.  Thus,
there is no basis in the record for requiring ERB to hold that
the employee had engaged in "serious criminal misconduct, related
to work," as that phrase is used in ORS 243.706(1) and, thus, was
not entitled to reinstatement on that ground.  
		The county has not referred this court to any statute,
other than ORS 181.662(3) (1999), or to any judicial decision
that it claims contains a clearly defined public policy that
would preclude the employee's reinstatement.  Neither have we
found any such policy.  It follows that the Court of Appeals
erred in holding that the arbitration award of reinstatement was
unenforceable under ORS 243.706(1).  The case must be remanded to
the Court of Appeals for resolution of the county's other
arguments, including its contention that reinstatement of the
employee would violate public policy clearly defined in statutes
or court decisions regarding dishonesty, and its further
assertion that ERB erred in refusing to consider certain
evidence. 
		The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed.  The
case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further
consideration.



1. ORS 243.672(1)(g) provides:
		"It is an unfair labor practice for a public
employer or its designated representative to do any of
the following:
		"* * * * *
		"(g) Violate the provisions of any written
contract with respect to employment relations including
an agreement to arbitrate or to accept the terms of an
arbitration award, where previously the parties have
agreed to accept such awards as final and binding upon
them." 
(Emphasis added.) 

2. ORS 243.706(1) provides:
		"As a condition of enforceability, any arbitration
award that orders the reinstatement of a public
employee or otherwise relieves the public employee of
responsibility for misconduct shall comply with public
policy requirements as clearly defined in statutes or
judicial decisions including but not limited to
policies respecting sexual harassment or sexual
misconduct, unjustified and egregious use of physical
or deadly force and serious criminal misconduct,
related to work."
(Emphasis added.)  As the emphasized parts of the statute
demonstrate, the phrase, "comply with public policy" is not an
open-ended, abstract reference.  Instead, it refers to such
policy that is "clearly defined in statutes or judicial
decisions."  The statute then gives examples of the kinds of
policies that are included within its scope.  Throughout this
opinion, references to "public policy" are references to policy
so defined and so limited.
3. The legislature subsequently amended ORS 181.662 to
eliminate direct reference to drug offenses.  That statute now
refers simply to "conviction of a crime," ORS 181.662(1)(b),and
directs DPSST to enumerate in its administrative regulations
specific crimes warranting decertification, ORS 181.662(4). 

4. In light of that holding, the court did not address the
county's evidentiary argument or its contention that the employee
had been "dishonest" and reinstatement of a dishonest public
safety officer also would not comply with public policy.  Id.