310 January 24, 2024 No. 39

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE 

STATE OF OREGON

SEIU LOCAL 503, OPEU,

Respondent,

Cross-Petitioner,

v.

ST,

Petitioner,

Cross-Respondent.

Employment Relations Board

UP02421; A179824

Argued and submitted November 16, 2023.

Rebekah C. Millard argued the cause for petitionercross-respondent. Also on the opening brief was James G. 

Abernathy.

Stacey Leyton argued the cause for respondent-crosspetitioner. Also on the briefs were Zoe Palitz and Altshuler 

Berzon, LLP; and Jared Franz.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, and Lagesen, Chief 

Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

KAMINS, J.
Cite as 330 Or App 310 (2024) 311
312 SEIU Local 503, OPEU v. ST

KAMINS, J.

This petition for judicial review is about whether 

the Employment Relations Board (ERB) had authority to 

address a public employee’s challenge to a union’s deduction 

of about six weeks of union dues from her paycheck after 

she resigned her union membership. Petitioner Staci Trees 

seeks reversal of an ERB order determining that ERB has 

jurisdiction over disputes regarding authorization for union 

dues deductions and resolving the dues deduction dispute in 

favor of Service Employees International Union Local 503 

(the Union). The Union cross-petitions, challenging ERB’s 

dismissal of its unfair labor practice (ULP) claim against 

petitioner. We review ERB’s order for substantial evidence, 

substantial reason, and legal error, ORS 183.482(8), and 

affirm.

	 We draw our summary of the facts from ERB’s findings. In 2009, petitioner signed a union membership card 

when she began working for the Oregon Department of 

Transportation. Over 11 years later, petitioner sent a letter 

to the Union seeking to resign her union membership. At 

that time (and per her request), the Union provided her with 

a copy of her membership and dues authorization agreement signed in March 2016. The Union notified petitioner

that she had submitted her resignation request outside the 

window for terminating dues as stated in the 2016 agreement, meaning that petitioner was required to continue 

paying union dues for the next two months. The Union also 

explained to petitioner that it would retain her request and 

process it during the dues termination window.

Petitioner denied having signed the 2016 agreement and filed a federal lawsuit against the Union alleging

fraud, racketeering, and civil rights violations. In response, 

the Union filed a claim with ERB to resolve whether petitioner had indeed signed the 2016 agreement authorizing 

dues deductions. The Union also alleged that petitioner had 

committed a ULP by refusing to honor her agreement and by 

filing preempted state law claims in federal court. Petitioner

challenged ERB’s jurisdiction, first in an informal response

with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), then in a motion 

to dismiss that was referred to ERB, and finally in a motion
Cite as 330 Or App 310 (2024) 313

filed in federal court. At each juncture, petitioner’s objections to ERB’s jurisdiction were rejected.

Following a three-day hearing, an ALJ determined 

that petitioner had signed the 2016 agreement and was 

bound by its terms. ERB affirmed the ALJ’s recommendation, and both petitioner and the Union seek review of that 

order.

	 Petitioner’s first assignment of error challenges

ERB’s jurisdiction to determine the validity of the 2016 

agreement. An administrative agency’s “[j]urisdiction 

depends on whether the matter is one that the legislature 

has authorized the agency to decide.” Multnomah County 

Sheriff’s Office v. Edwards, 361 Or 761, 778, 399 P3d 969 

(2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). Relevant to this 

petition, the legislature had authorized ERB to resolve disputes “between the public employee and the labor organization regarding the existence, validity or revocation of an 

authorization for the deductions and payment [of dues],” and 

has provided that “the dispute shall be resolved through 

an unfair labor proceeding under ORS 243.672.” ORS 

243.806(10)(a). ERB determined that it had jurisdiction 

under ORS 243.806(10)(a) to resolve the question of whether 

petitioner had signed the 2016 agreement. We review ERB’s 

interpretation of ORS 243.806(10)(a) for legal error. ORS 

183.482(8)(a).

Petitioner contends that ERB lacked jurisdiction to 

decide whether her union membership agreement was valid 

because, in her view, ERB’s jurisdiction is limited to deciding 

ULP claims as defined in ORS 243.672. Here, because the

factual dispute regarding the authenticity of the signature 

of the union membership agreement did not relate to a ULP 

claim, petitioner contends that ERB should have dismissed 

the claim. In response, the Union argues that the statute 

grants ERB jurisdiction to resolve disputes regarding the 

existence of authorizations for deductions of dues and does 

not limit that jurisdiction to claims alleging ULPs.

When interpreting statutes, “our task is to discern 

the intent of the legislature.” Black v. Coos County, 288 

Or App 25, 29, 405 P3d 178 (2017). “Our starting point is the 
314 SEIU Local 503, OPEU v. ST

text and context of the statute, because the best evidence of 

the legislature’s intent is the text itself.” Id. (internal citations omitted). We give words of common usage their “plain, 

natural, and ordinary meaning.” PGE v. Bureau of Labor 

and Industries, 317 Or 606, 610-11, 859 P2d 1143 (1993). 

After examining text and context, we review legislative history that is useful to our analysis. State v. Gaines, 346 Or 

160, 171-72, 206 P3d 1042 (2009).

We begin with the relevant text of the statute:

“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 [of dues], the dispute shall be resolved through an 

unfair labor practice proceeding under ORS 243.672.”

ORS 243.806(10)(a). It does not appear contested that a “dispute” exists as described in ORS 243.806(10)(a)—the Union 

asserted that petitioner signed a membership agreement in 

March 2016 entitling it to deduct dues for about six weeks 

after her resignation from the union while petitioner denies 

that she ever signed that agreement. The question then is 

whether ORS 243.806(1) requires the assertion of a ULP 

claim as defined in ORS 243.672 for ERB to exercise its

jurisdiction.

The plain text of ORS 243.806(10)(a)—“the dispute shall be resolved through an unfair labor proceeding” 

(emphases added)—grammatically and logically signifies

that ERB shall resolve dues deduction authorization disputes as ULP proceedings—not that a ULP claim, as defined

in ORS 243.672, must be asserted. ORS 243.806(10)(a). To 

avoid that common-sense reading, petitioner argues for a 

construction that would require a dispute relating to an 

authorization for deduction of dues to be part of a separate 

claim for a ULP, as defined in ORS 243.672. That construction would render ORS 243.806(10)(a) superfluous, as ERB

already has authority to resolve factual disputes that arise 

in ULP claims. See State v. Cloutier, 351 Or 68, 98-100, 261 

P3d 1234 (2011) (A statutory interpretation “that renders a 

statutory provision meaningless should give us pause, both 

as a matter of respect for a coordinate branch of government 

that took the trouble to enact the provision into law and 
Cite as 330 Or App 310 (2024) 315

as a matter of complying with [interpretive principles].”);

Vsetecka v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 337 Or 502, 510, 98 P3d 1116 

(2004) (“When, as in this case, a statute contains multiple 

provisions, ORS 174.010 directs us to read those provisions, 

if possible, in a way that will give effect to all of them.”). The 

statute does not state that dues deduction disputes can be 

resolved before ERB only in the context of “an unfair labor 

practice” claim under ORS 243.672, which would have been 

a straightforward way to describe the reading advanced by 

petitioner.

Context strengthens our reading. ORS 243.806(1)1

and (2)2

 authorize a public employee and a union to enter 

into a dues-deduction agreement and require a public 

employer to make deductions in accordance with that agreement. Those provisions describe general dues deduction 

authorizations and do not refer to ULPs. ORS 243.806(10) 

then provides a remedy for resolving disputes arising out of 

dues deduction authorizations. The context and plain text of 

the statute explicitly provide ERB with authority to resolve 

disputes regarding authorization for the deduction of dues 

between public employees and a labor organization by way 

of an unfair labor proceeding.

Petitioner contends that ORS 243.766 and ORS 

243.676(3), together, provide context for the construction 

that ERB’s jurisdiction is limited to resolving ULP claims. 

ORS 243.766(3) grants ERB jurisdiction to “[c]onduct proceedings on complaints of unfair labor practices.” And, pursuant to ORS 243.676(3)(a), “[w]here the board finds that the

person named in the complaint has not engaged in or is not 

engaging in an unfair labor practice, the board shall * ** 

[i]ssue an order dismissing the complaint ** *.” Petitioner 

1 ORS 243.806(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 ORS 243.806(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.”
316 SEIU Local 503, OPEU v. ST

argues that those statutes limit ERB’s authority to consider 

claims that do not involve a ULP. But that construction 

overlooks the explicit statement in ORS 243.806(10) that 

disputes concerning authorization for dues deductions are 

to be resolved through a ULP proceeding. Simply stated, 

although it does not itself constitute a ULP claim, a dispute 

relating to authorization of union dues deductions is to be 

brought to ERB as a ULP proceeding.

The legislative history supports our construction 

of the statute. ORS 243.806(10) was added to the Public 

Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA) as part of 

House Bill (HB) 2016 (2019), an expansive piece of legislation dealing with labor relations in the wake of the United 

States Supreme Court’s decision in Janus v. AFSCME, 

Council 31, 585 US __, 138 S Ct 2448, 201 L Ed 2d 924 

(2018). The bill included multiple amendments to PECBA, 

including a comprehensive scheme regarding dues deductions for public employees, labor organizations, and public 

employers. Part of that comprehensive scheme is Section 6 

of HB 2016, which is codified at ORS 243.806(10). As ERB

has explained, “The legislative history of ORS 243.806 also 

supports a conclusion that the intent of the statute was to 

prevent unauthorized dues deductions from public employees[.]” Alexander v. Amalgamated Transit Union, Div. 757, 

UP-022-20, 18-19 (2021).

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.” Testimony, House 

Committee on Business and Labor, HB 2016, Mar 11, 2019, 

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/ (statement of Noah Barish) 

(accessed Nov 2, 2023). Barish, a labor attorney, explained 

to the legislators,

“There’s also a dispute resolution provision in this bill and 

that’s a benefit to all parties involved. We see that currently disputes are being litigated in civil court over deduction issues and this bill will allow those disputes to be processed through [ERB] through [a ULP] proceeding which is 

much more prompt and cost-effective.”
Cite as 330 Or App 310 (2024) 317

Audio Recording, House Committee on Business and Labor, 

HB 2016, Mar 11, 2019, at 14:04 (comments of Noah Barish), 

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov (accessed Nov 2, 2023). He 

also stated, “Overall, there is an intention here to ensure 

that an individual employee’s deduction decisions are a 

private matter between them and the union.” Id. at 14:32; 

see also Audio Recording, Senate Committee on Workforce, 

HB 2016, Apr 18, 2019, at 32:00 (comments of Adam Arms), 

https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov (accessed Nov 2, 2023) 

(describing how the union is now tasked with dues deduction 

record keeping and explaining that “Section 6 provides a 

clear and efficient dispute resolution process through [ERB]

to deal with disagreements over the status of dues deductions”). No testimony before either Committee suggests that 

ERB’s power to resolve disputes regarding dues deductions 

depends on the existence of a statutorily defined ULP.

Petitioner points to testimony that, in her view, 

challenges that reading. Jeffrey Chicoine, representing 

the Oregon Public Employer Labor Relations Association, 

commented,

“[The bill] puts public funds at the risk of recordkeeping 

errors of the union. This is a very real concern given potential liability to the public employers for the full panoply of 

damages available in federal civil rights actions, including 

attorney fees. For this reason, public employers have been 

counseled by both lawyers and auditors to have unions provide copies of authorizations of requests for withholdings of 

wages whether for dues or other purposes.”

Testimony, House Committee on Business and Labor, 

HB 2016, Mar 7, 2019, https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov 

(accessed Dec 15, 2023). According to petitioner, Chicoine’s 

statements express concern that HB 2016 would increase 

potential employer liability under state and federal law—

for actions that are, as petitioner interprets Chicoine’s comments, outside ERB’s jurisdiction. However, the comments 

identified by petitioner address a different provision of the

statute—specifically, the requirement now contained in

ORS 243.806(7) that, in Chicoine’s words, employers “withhold and remit funds without a union showing the employer 

the authorization (or read literally) even without the union 
318 SEIU Local 503, OPEU v. ST

having such an authorization” and thus have no bearing on 

our construction of ORS 243.806(10). Id.

We conclude that the text, context, and legislative 

history of ORS 243.806(10) reflect the legislature’s intent

to assign to ERB authority to resolve disputes regarding 

an authorization for dues deductions independent of a ULP 

claim.

In her second assignment of error, petitioner challenges ERB’s finding that she signed the 2016 dues agreement. We review ERB’s decisions for substantial evidence. 

Oregon AFSCME Council 75 v. OJD - Yamhill County, 304 

Or App 794, 818, 469 P3d 812, rev den, 367 Or 75 (2020). 

“Substantial evidence to support a finding of fact is evidence

that, viewing the record as a whole, would permit a reasonable person to make that finding.” Id. (internal quotation 

marks omitted); ORS 183.482(8)(c).

	 Here, substantial evidence supports ERB’s finding

that petitioner signed the 2016 agreement. The Union presented first-hand witness testimony that petitioner signed

the membership agreement on March 22, 2016, and supported that testimony with testimony from other Union 

witnesses, contemporaneous documentary evidence, and 

the opinion of a handwriting expert that ERB found to be 

more persuasive than petitioner’s expert. The Union also 

presented evidence that it would not have been possible for 

petitioner’s signature to have been forged under the factual 

circumstances.

	 Petitioner identifies competing evidence that, in

her view, supports a finding that she did not sign the 2016

agreement. But in light of the breadth of evidence supporting ERB’s finding, competing evidence in this case does not

signify an absence of substantial evidence. See Gaylord v. 

Driver & Motor Vehicle Services Division, 283 Or App 811, 

822, 391 P3d 900 (2017) (“Review for substantial evidence 

is review to determine whether a reasonable person could 

have made the findings supporting the decision, not whether

a reasonable person could have made different findings.”

(Internal quotation marks omitted.)). Petitioner also argues 

that ERB incorrectly assigned the burden of proof, but the 
Cite as 330 Or App 310 (2024) 319

record reflects that ERB correctly placed the burden on the

Union to prove by a preponderance of evidence that petitioner signed the 2016 agreement.

Moreover, petitioner’s argument challenging the 

reliability of certain witnesses fails, as we are not tasked 

with reweighing the evidence or reassessing the credibility of the witnesses. See Oregon AFSCME Council 75, 304 

Or App at 818 (“This court does not weigh the evidence anew 

or otherwise judicially interfere with how ERB evaluates, 

weighs, and balances competing criteria to reach a decision.”); Gaylord, 283 Or App at 822 (“A substantial evidence 

review does not entail or permit the reviewing tribunal 

to reweigh or to assess the credibility of the evidence that 

was presented to the factfinding body.” (Internal quotation

marks omitted.)).

Petitioner takes issue with ERB’s exclusion of testimony by other Union-represented employees suggesting 

that the Union habitually forges signatures of unwilling 

employees. Assuming that the argument was preserved, the 

evidence was properly excluded, because it was not relevant 

to the question of whether petitioner signed the 2016 agreement, and the evidence related to different bargaining units, 

different organizers, and different devices. We conclude that 

substantial evidence in the record supports ERB’s finding

that petitioner signed the 2016 agreement authorizing dues 

deductions.

Finally, in her third assignment of error, petitioner 

argues that ERB’s resolution of the dispute violated her 

constitutional right to file a federal suit against the Union.

However, ERB did not address petitioner’s pending federal 

claims, and did not preclude petitioner from filing a federal

action. Nor did ERB determine the preclusive effect of its 

findings on petitioner’s pending federal claims; as petitioner

acknowledges, the determination of the preclusive effect 

of any part of ERB’s decision is a question for the federal 

court. See, e.g., Astoria Federal Savings & Loan Association 

v. Solimino, 501 US 104, 106, 111 S Ct 2166, 115 L Ed 2d 

96 (1991) (determining the preclusive effect of state agency 

findings in federal court).
320 SEIU Local 503, OPEU v. ST

In its assignment of error on cross-petition, the 

Union contends that ERB erred in dismissing its ULP 

claim against petitioner. Under ORS 243.672(2)(c), a public employee commits a ULP when the employee “[r]efuse[s] 

or fail[s] to comply with any provision of ORS 243.650 to 

243.809.” ORS 243.806(6) provides that an “employee’s 

authorization for ** * deduction” of union dues “shall remain 

in effect until the public employee revokes the authorization in the manner provided by the terms of the agreement.” 

According to the Union, petitioner “[r]efuse[d] ** * to comply” with the terms of her dues authorization by denying its 

existence and seeking a refund of dues. ERB found that the 

language of the statute does not preclude employees from 

challenging the validity of their authorizations. We find no

error with that conclusion, on this record, and we conclude 

that ERB did not err in dismissing the Union’s ULP claim.

	 Affirmed on petition and on cross-petition.