Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
FEDERATION OF OREGON PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS, Respondent
vs.
STATE OF OREGON CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, Petitioner
 
Case:
CA No. A69143
 
Location:
Court of Appeals of Oregon
 
Date:
July 8, 1992
 
Attorneys:
Harrison Latto Assistant Counsel General Salem argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer Counsel General and Virginia L. Linder Solicitor General Salem. Daryl S. Garrettson Portland argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William J. Gibbons and Aitchison Hoag Vick & Tarantino
Portland.
 
Court:
Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
 
Author:
Per Curiam
 

Oregon State Department of Corrections (Department) seeks judicial review of final order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB). ERB determined that Department had committed an unfair labor practice ORS 243.672(1)(e) when it refused to bargain with the Federation of Oregon Parole and Probation Officers the collective bargaining representative of Department's employees before requiring an employee to submit to a drug test.

ERB relied on our opinion in Tualatin Valley Bargaining v. Tigard School Dist. 106 Or App 381 808 P2d 101 rev allowed 312 Or 16 (1991) in holding that mandatory drug testing is a "matter concerning" employee discipline and job security which are "other conditions of employment" within the meaning of ORS 243.650(7) *fn1 thus making the testing a mandatory subject for bargaining. Department contends that we erred in that case by interpreting Portland Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Portland 305 Or 275 751 P2d 770 (1988) to have modified the analysis in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist. 290 Or 217 621 P2d 547 (1980) to determine whether balancing was required.

Although we do not believe that we did that in Tualatin Valley unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise that case controls.

Affirmed.

 
Notes:

*fn1 ORS 243.650(7) provides:

"'Employment relations' includes but is not limited to matters concerning direct or indirect monetary benefits hours vacations sick leave grievance procedures and other conditions of employment."