School Dist. 115, Clackamas County v. Oregon School Employees Ass'n, Chapter 66

• Decision Date: 18 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 81-2-378,81-2-378
• Citation: 669 P.2d 821,64 Or.App. 685
• Parties: , 13 Ed. Law Rep. 869 SCHOOL DISTRICT 115, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Oregon, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. OREGON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 66, Appellant-Cross-Respondent. ; CA A23517.
• Court: Oregon Court of Appeals

Page 821

669 P.2d 821

64 Or.App. 685, 13 Ed. Law Rep. 869

SCHOOL DISTRICT 115, CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Oregon, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, v. OREGON SCHOOL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, CHAPTER 66,

Appellant-Cross-Respondent.

No. 81-2-378; CA A23517.

Court of Appeals of Oregon.

Argued and Submitted Nov. 8, 1982.

Decided Sept. 28, 1983.

Reconsideration Denied Nov. 18, 1983.

Paul B. Meadowbrook, Gen. Counsel, Oregon School Employees Ass'n, Salem, argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant-cross-respondent.

Paul D. Schultz, Oregon City, argued the cause for respondent-cross-appellant. With him on the brief was Hibbard, Caldwell, Bowerman, Schultz & Hergert, Oregon City.

Before JOSEPH, C.J., WARDEN and VAN HOOMISSEN, JJ.

WARDEN, Judge.

This is an action for reformation of a collective bargaining agreement. The trial court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directed the depositary of funds it had ordered the district to pay into a court-supervised account to deliver those funds to the district. The association appeals, seeking reversal of that portion of the judgment releasing the disputed funds to the district. The district cross-appeals, seeking reversal of that portion of the judgment dismissing the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

The facts are not in dispute. After executing the written contract that resulted from the parties' collective bargaining, the district discovered that the 1 percent salary increase for hourly employes agreed upon had inadvertently been recorded in the document as a 10 percent increase. The district demanded that the contract be rewritten to conform to the agreement. The association refused to comply.

The district brought this action in equity for reformation of the contract and for a decree permitting it to recover the amounts allegedly overpaid in prior pay periods. ¹ It secured an order authorizing it to reduce the pay of its hourly employes to 1 percent more than it had been paying under their preceding contract and to deposit the disputed 9 percent into an interest-bearing bank account pending the outcome of the suit. The association moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reform the contract, because primary jurisdiction over collective bargaining agreements is vested in the Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB). The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. It also set aside the order directing the district to deposit the disputed 9 percent into the bank account and released to the district the funds it had deposited in that account.

We first consider whether the trial court had jurisdiction to reform the contract and conclude that it did not. Jurisdiction for unfair labor practice complaints rests exclusively with ERB. AFSCME v. Executive Dept., 52 Or.App. 457, 465, 628 P.2d 1228, rev. den. 291 Or. 771, 642 P.2d 308 (1981); see also Smith v. State of Oregon, 31 Or.App. 15, 569 P.2d 677 (1977), rev. den. 281 Or. 99 (1978). The district concedes that ERB would have jurisdiction if an unfair labor practice complaint was at issue but contends that ERB lacks jurisdiction in this case, because the district did not charge its employes with an unfair labor practice. At the same time, it argues that, because ERB has exclusive jurisdiction to decide unfair labor practice complaints, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to find that an unfair labor practice was at issue and, therefore, could not determine that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction. It goes on to argue that, because the complaint merely sought reformation of a collective bargaining agreement, jurisdiction was vested in the circuit court. We do not find the argument persuasive. Suffice it to say that, with few exceptions, ² every court has the power, even the duty, ³ to determine whether it has jurisdiction to decide the matter before it.

Under ORS 243.672(2)(e), it is an unfair labor practice for a labor organization to refuse to reduce an agreement, reached as a result of collective bargaining, to writing and to sign the resulting contract. It is also an unfair labor practice to refuse to reform an executed document that does not...