Am. Fed'n of State Cnty. & Mun. Emps. v. City of Leb., ERB UP1411

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the CourtBALDWIN, J.
Citation360 Or. 809,388 P.3d 1028
Parties AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Council 75, Local 2043, Petitioner on Review, v. CITY OF LEBANON, Respondent on Review.
Docket NumberSC S062750,ERB UP1411,CA A152059
Decision Date02 February 2017

360 Or. 809
388 P.3d 1028

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, Council 75, Local 2043, Petitioner on Review,
v.
CITY OF LEBANON, Respondent on Review.

ERB UP1411
CA A152059
SC S062750

Supreme Court of Oregon, En Banc.

Argued and submitted June 16, 2015.
February 2, 2017


Giles Gibson, Legal Counsel, Oregon AFSCME, Council 75, Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for petitioner on review.

John E. Kennedy, The Morely Thomas Law Firm, Lebanon, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent on review.

Elizabeth A. Joffe, McKanna Bishop Joffe, LLP, Portland, filed the brief on behalf of amici curiae Oregon AFL-CIO, Oregon Education Association, Oregon Public Employees Union, Oregon State Firefighters Council, and Service Employees International Union Local 503.

BALDWIN, J.

360 Or. 811

This case requires us to consider whether the City of Lebanon (city) committed an unfair labor practice under Oregon's Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), ORS 243.650 - 243.782, when one of its council members, Campbell, wrote a letter to a local newspaper disparaging labor unions in general and calling for city employees to decertify their existing union. The Employment Relations Board (ERB or board) concluded that the city had engaged in an unfair labor practice based on Campbell's conduct. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the city was not liable because Campbell had not acted as a "public employer or its designated representative" within the meaning of PECBA. AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon , 265 Or.App. 288, 336 P.3d 519 (2014). For the reasons explained below, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and remand to ERB for further proceedings.

I. BACKGROUND

The undisputed facts, as summarized by the Court of Appeals, are:

"According to the City of Lebanon Charter of 2004, the city is 'a municipal corporation' that includes 'all territory encompassed by its boundaries * * *.' The city is also a
388 P.3d 1030
public employer as defined by ORS 243.650(20). All powers of the city are vested in the city council, which is composed of a mayor and six councilors; the council delegates much of that power to the city administrator (manager), who is the 'administrative head of the government of the City.' Specifically, the city administrator (manager) is 'responsible for the daily operation of the City's departments and implementation of Council policy.'

"The council is responsible for holding regular meetings, adopting 'rules for the government of its members and proceedings[,]' and appointing certain city officers. The council is also responsible for passing ordinances and voting on questions before it, including whether to approve 'a bond of a City officer or a bond for a license, contract or proposal[.]' Except as the city charter provides, 'the concurrence of a majority of the members of the Council present and voting at a Council meeting shall be necessary to decide any question before the Council.' Further, '[n]o action by the council
360 Or. 812
shall have legal effect unless the motion for the action and the vote by which it is disposed of take[ ] place at proceedings open to the public.'

"Campbell was appointed as a city councilor in 2010 and was a member of the budget committee. As a city councilor, she would 'be asked to vote and ratify any collective bargaining agreement with the Union that [was] negotiated by the City negotiation team.' However, Campbell was not a member of the city's labor negotiation team, and, [o]ver the last 10 years, no city councilor [had] been a member of the City's labor negotiation team.

"At the time of the events giving rise to this case, the city was experiencing a budget crisis, and the city and the union were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that was set to expire. The president of the union, along with the president of another union that represents city employees, co-authored a letter to the city. In that letter, the union presidents stated that the city should consider eliminating the positions of assistant city manager/human resources manager and human resources assistant before cutting essential services or laying off union workers.

"Shortly thereafter, Campbell sent a letter to the Lebanon Express, a local newspaper. The letter was addressed to 'All Citizens of Lebanon [.]' Campbell began the letter by stating:

" 'I would like to inform all of you about some elements of my personal background before I get to the basis of my letter. Further I would like to clarify this letter is being written by me as an individual and not a reflection of a majority of the City Council, the City or my employer.'

"Campbell then described her and her family's involvement with unions, defended the city's human resources positions, and criticized unions in general. Campbell concluded the letter by stating:

" 'To employees of the City and other organizations imprisoned by the dictatorship of a union as a private citizen I advise you to seek out the Department of Labor website where you can find instructions on how to de-certify your union captors. As an individual and former union member I believe you can put your union dues to better use in your own household budget and in supporting causes that truly express your own values.'
360 Or. 813
" 'Sincerely,'

" 'Margaret A. Campbell'

" 'City Councilor'

" 'Ward II'

"The newspaper published an article that summarized Campbell's letter. That article noted that the letter could be found on the newspaper's website and stated that Campbell planned to read the letter at a city council meeting. The parties later stipulated that Campbell did not read the letter at the meeting."

City of Lebanon , 265 Or.App. at 289–91, 336 P.3d 519 (alterations in orginal).

As a result of Campbell's conduct, AFSCME Council 75 (union) filed an unfair labor practice complaint against the city, alleging that Campbell's comments were made in her official capacity as a council member.

388 P.3d 1031

The parties submitted the case on stipulated facts directly to ERB. The board concluded that the city violated PECBA when Campbell, in her letter, advised city employees "to seek out the Department of Labor website where you can find instructions on how to de-certify your union captors."1 The board issued a cease- and-desist order and required the city to post an official notice of its wrongdoing. See ORS 243.676 (authorizing such remedy when unfair labor practice established). The board reasoned that a "public employer [under the PECBA] is liable for the actions of its officials" and that, because Campbell "spoke as the City's representative, liability for her remarks is ascribed to the City." The board observed that Campbell was "a member of a six-person Council in which the City Charter vests all powers. The Council is the public employer[,] and Campbell shares that status because she is a member of the Council." (Emphasis in original.) The board further noted that Campbell, "as a member of the council

360 Or. 814

that is responsible for formulating all City policies and overseeing all City operations, is a public employer."2

In the Court of Appeals, the city assigned error to ERB's conclusion that Campbell acted as a public employer or its designated representative under PECBA when she submitted her letter to the newspaper.3 The Court of Appeals agreed with the city and reversed. The court concluded that Campbell was not the city's "designated representative" within the meaning of PECBA, because the record lacked any evidence that the city had "specifically designated" Campbell to act as its representative. City of Lebanon , 265 Or.App. at 295–96, 336 P.3d 519. Further, the court concluded that Campbell could not be a "public employer" under PECBA, because she was not acting as an agent when she submitted her letter to the local newspaper:

"The union raises an interesting question by asserting that we should apply agency principles in this case: whether a public employer can be liable for an unfair labor practice committed by an agent other than its designated representative. However, we need not resolve that question because, even assuming without deciding that it is appropriate to apply agency principles in this context, we conclude that Campbell was not acting as the city's agent when she wrote and sent her letter."

Id. at 297, 336 P.3d 519 (footnote omitted).

360 Or. 815

We accepted the union's petition for review to determine whether Campbell was either a "public employer" or a "designated representative" of the city under PECBA when she submitted her letter to the newspaper. On review, the city does not challenge ERB's conclusion that the portion of Campbell's letter urging city employees to decertify their union would constitute an unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672(1)(a) and (b) if committed by "a public employer or its designated representative." The only issue

388 P.3d 1032

for us to resolve, therefore,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Or. AFSCME Council 75 v. State, A167661
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • June 17, 2020
    ...is consistent with the federal law-derived community of interest factor that PECBA adopted. See AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 817, 825, 388 P.3d 1028 (2017) (PECBA is patterned after the NLRA in many respects; federal cases interpreting NLRA can provide guidance in int......
  • Multnomah Cnty. v. Multnomah Cnty. Corr. Deputy Ass'n, A174035
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • January 20, 2022
    ..., which we consider dispositive here.The Supreme Court discussed the policies underlying PECBA in AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 815-18, 388 P.3d 1028 (2017). Citing ORS 243.656 —which explicitly states the policy considerations underlying PECBA—the Supreme Court noted ......
  • Chambers v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, Case No. 3:18-cv-1685-SI
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • March 31, 2020
    ...bargaining between municipal and other public employers and employees." Am. Fed'n of State Cty. & Mun. Emps. v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 815, 388 P.3d 1028 (2017) (citation omitted); see ORS § 243.650 et seq . Part of that statutory scheme required that the unions represent all bargai......
  • Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr, No. 17-73153
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 23, 2019
    ...treats security guards as authorized agents of the owner. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.655 ; see also, e.g. , AFSCME v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 388 P.3d 1028, 1038 (2017) (holding that employers can be liable for their employees' conduct); Hoke v. May Dep't Stores Co. , 133 Or.App. 410, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
15 cases
  • Or. AFSCME Council 75 v. State, A167661
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • June 17, 2020
    ...is consistent with the federal law-derived community of interest factor that PECBA adopted. See AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 817, 825, 388 P.3d 1028 (2017) (PECBA is patterned after the NLRA in many respects; federal cases interpreting NLRA can provide guidance in int......
  • Multnomah Cnty. v. Multnomah Cnty. Corr. Deputy Ass'n, A174035
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Oregon
    • January 20, 2022
    ..., which we consider dispositive here.The Supreme Court discussed the policies underlying PECBA in AFSCME Council 75 v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 815-18, 388 P.3d 1028 (2017). Citing ORS 243.656 —which explicitly states the policy considerations underlying PECBA—the Supreme Court noted ......
  • Chambers v. Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps. Int'l Union, AFL-CIO, Case No. 3:18-cv-1685-SI
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • March 31, 2020
    ...bargaining between municipal and other public employers and employees." Am. Fed'n of State Cty. & Mun. Emps. v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 815, 388 P.3d 1028 (2017) (citation omitted); see ORS § 243.650 et seq . Part of that statutory scheme required that the unions represent all bargai......
  • Lopez-Aguilar v. Barr, No. 17-73153
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • April 23, 2019
    ...treats security guards as authorized agents of the owner. See Or. Rev. Stat. § 131.655 ; see also, e.g. , AFSCME v. City of Lebanon , 360 Or. 809, 388 P.3d 1028, 1038 (2017) (holding that employers can be liable for their employees' conduct); Hoke v. May Dep't Stores Co. , 133 Or.App. 410, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT