Case Name: RURAL ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, Petitioner, v. BECKER, Respondent; RURAL ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, Petitioner, v. PETTET, Respondent
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Oregon
Decision Date: 1975-10-20
Citations: 23 Or. App. 141
Docket Number: No. C-466; No. C-465
Parties: RURAL ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, Petitioner, v. BECKER, Respondent. RURAL ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, Petitioner, v. PETTET, Respondent.
Judges: Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.
Reporter: Oregon Reports, Court of Appeals
Volume: 23
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
Argued September 18,
affirmed October 20, 1975
RURAL ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, Petitioner, v. BECKER, Respondent. RURAL ROAD ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 3, Petitioner, v. PETTET, Respondent.
(No. C-466)
(No. C-465)
541 P2d 1084
Melvin L. Walter, Ontario, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Taggart & Walter, Ontario.
James B. Church, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Richard R. Carney and Carney, Haley, Probst & Levak, Portland.
Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Thornton, Judges.

Opinion:
FOLEY, J.
These two cases were consolidated for appeal from determinations by the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB) that petitioner (employer), Rural Road Assessment District No. 3, committed an unfair labor practice in discharging respondents (employes) in violation of ORS 243.672(1) (a), (c) of the Oregon Public Employe Relations Act. The Board found that respondents were discharged as a result of their participation in labor organization activities and ordered reinstatement with back pay as authorized by ORS 243.676(2). Petitioner contends that respondents were fired for cause and that the Board's determinations are not supported by substantial evidence.
Our review is limited to a determination of whether the PERB's order is " supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence ORS 183.480(7) (d).
Thus the only issue before this court in these cases is whether there was substantial evidence to support the finding of the Board that respondents were discharged as a result of their participation in labor organizing activities.
It is sufficient to say that there was ample evidence from which the PERB could conclude, as it did, that the real reason for the discharge of respondents Becker and Pettet was their union activity.
Affirmed.