Opinion ID: 834755
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to file demand to bargain

Text: DOC also asks that we address an additional argument—that AOCE waived its right to bargain about the changes that DOC made by failing to ﬁle a demand to bargain within 14 days as required by ORS 243.698(3). The Court of Appeals did not reach that argument in AOCE I or AOCE II, and, because it involves arguments that differ signiﬁcantly from those we address here, we remand to permit the Court of Appeals to consider those issues in the ﬁrst instance. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. 14 ERB’s ruling is consistent with its own prior case law. See Fed’n of Oregon Parole and Probation Ofﬁcers v. Washington County, 19 PEBCR 411 (2001) (general language typically found in management rights clauses does not constitute a waiver); Days Creek Ass’n of Classiﬁed Employees v. Days Creek School Dist. 15, 16 PECBR 187, 202 (1995) (same); Service Employees Int’l Union, Local #49 v. Paciﬁc Communities Hospital, 13 PECBR 753, 767 (1992) (“This Board does not often ﬁnd a waiver of future bargaining rights in contract language.    Management rights    clauses    typically ﬁnd their way into contracts with little discussion of the parties’ intent. Moreover, most are worded so broadly that it cannot be concluded that a union ‘clearly and unmistakably’ waived a bargaining right which might never mature, and which concerns a subject not demonstrably in the contemplation of either party at the time of the purported waiver.”).