Court Opinion

ID: 9844754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:08:24.343193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:15:41.909901
License: Public Domain

EDMONDS, J.,
dissenting.
I suggest that ORS 659.360(3) is, on its face, equally susceptible to the interpretations proposed by the majority *365and Chief Judge Joseph in his dissent. What persuades me that the legislature intended that the terms of a collective bargaining agreement control over the election of an employee are the previous drafts' of the statute. There is a consistent thread in them that the legislature intended parental leave to be unpaid unless otherwise agreed by the employer and employee or unless controlled by a collective bargaining agreement. The collective bargaining agreement controls.
The majority concedes that the final draft was not intended to change the meaning of the statute but to clarify it so that the parental leave would not be added to any vacation or sick leave. That change created the ambiguity that is at the heart of the dispute over the meaning of the statute but did not change what the legislature intended. Both sentences in ORS 659.360(3) must be read together in the light of the legislative history. When that is done, it is apparent that BOLI erred when it held that petitioner had engaged in an unlawful employment practice when it adhered to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.
Joseph, C. J., joins in this dissent.