Narrative Opinion Summary
The Employment Relations Board (ERB) dismissed two petitions filed by ILWU Marine Supercargoes Clerks Local 40 (Local 40) for the certification of a bargaining unit representative. The petitions aimed to designate Local 40 as the representative for two bargaining units comprising superintendents and planners at Marine Terminal 6 of the Port of Portland, a public employer. Local 40 contends that the ERB made a legal error by dismissing the petitions, arguing that the ERB did not prioritize the employees' preferences as mandated by ORS 243.662 and failed to apply the criteria outlined in ORS 243.682(1). Additionally, Local 40 asserts that the ERB improperly favored its own policy supporting “wall-to-wall” bargaining units. The dissenting opinion argues for the reversal of the ERB's order and a remand for reevaluation based on the correct statutory criteria.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Criteria under ORS 243.682(1)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The petitioner argues that the Employment Relations Board failed to apply the statutory criteria correctly when dismissing the petitions.
Reasoning: Local 40 contends that the ERB made a legal error by dismissing the petitions... and failed to apply the criteria outlined in ORS 243.682(1).
Certification of Bargaining Unit Representative under ORS 243.662subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case involves the dismissal of petitions for certifying a bargaining unit representative, questioning whether the Employment Relations Board prioritized employee preferences as required by law.
Reasoning: Local 40 contends that the ERB made a legal error by dismissing the petitions, arguing that the ERB did not prioritize the employees' preferences as mandated by ORS 243.662.
Dissenting Opinion on ERB's Ordersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The dissenting opinion calls for the reversal of the Employment Relations Board's order and a reevaluation of the petitions based on statutory criteria.
Reasoning: The dissenting opinion argues for the reversal of the ERB's order and a remand for reevaluation based on the correct statutory criteria.
Policy Preference for 'Wall-to-Wall' Bargaining Unitssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case discusses the Employment Relations Board's preference for 'wall-to-wall' bargaining units and whether this policy improperly influenced its decision.
Reasoning: Additionally, Local 40 asserts that the ERB improperly favored its own policy supporting 'wall-to-wall' bargaining units.