Sutherlin Educ. Ass'n v. Sutherlin School Dist. No. 130 Employment Relations Bd.
| Citation | 548 P.2d 204,25 Or.App. 85 |
| Parties | , 92 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2693, 80 Lab.Cas. P 53,973 SUTHERLIN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. SUTHERLIN SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 130, EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD, Respondents. . Submitted on Record and Petitioner's Brief |
| Decision Date | 18 February 1976 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Oregon |
Henry H. Drummonds and Kulongoski, Heid, Durham & Drummonds, Eugene, filed the brief for petitioner.
No appearance for respondent Sutherlin School District No. 130.
No appearance for respondent Employment Relations Bd.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and THORNTON, JJ.
The Sutherlin Education Association, the exclusive bargaining representative of the teachers in the Sutherlin School District, ORS 243.650(8), appeals from the decision of the Employment Relations Board (ERB) which held that a proposed subject for collective bargaining was a permissive and not a mandatory subject for bargaining.
The disputed subject is made up of three parts. The first deals with the authority of a teacher to require that a student see a specialist such as a counselor, psychologist or a physician. The second deals with the authority of a teacher to exclude a disruptive student from the classroom. The third deals with establishing a Student Behavior Study Committee which would recommend procedures for handling problem students.
This case reachs us in the same manner as did Springfield Ed. Ass'n v. Sch. Dist., 24 Or.App. 751, 547 P.2d 647 (1976). The school board refused to bargain over the subject in question and the education association filed an unfair labor practices complaint with ERB, alleging that the school district refused to bargain over a 'condition of employment,' ORS 243.650(7), i.e., a mandatory subject for bargaining. ORS 243.672(1)(e). ERB determined that the subject was not a mandatory subject and that the school board was therefore not required to bargain over this subject. The education association appeals that determination to this court.
In this case ERB apparently accepted the school district's argument that since the local school board is required by ORS 339.240(2) to adopt disciplinary rules consistent with the rules promulgated by the State Board of Education, ORS 339.240(1), it is not required to bargain over the three parts of this subject. As pointed out in Springfield, this reasoning will not support ERB's decision. True, the local board cannot agree to adopt rules inconsistent with the statewide rules,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springfield Educ. Ass'n v. Springfield School Dist. No. 19
... ... 19 and Employment Relations ... Board, Respondents, ... School ... 2 Springfield Ed. Assn. v. Sch. Dist., 24 Or.App. 751, 759, 547 P.2d 647 ... the basis of its intervening opinion in Sutherlin Ed. Assn. v. Sch. Dist., 25 Or.App. 85, 548 P.2d ... ...
-
Central Michigan University Faculty Ass'n v. Central Michigan University, Docket No. 59753
... ... , on brief, for appellee Michigan Employment Relations Commission ... J ... 278] example, Van Buren Public School Dist. v. Wayne Circuit Judge, 61 Mich.App. 6, 232 ... has on a teacher's employment." Sutherlin Education Ass'n v. Sutherlin School District No. 130, 25 Or.App. 85, 548 P.2d 204, 205 (1976) ... E. g., Pontiac Police Officers Assn's v. Pontiac, 397 Mich. 674, 681, 246 N.W.2d 831 ... ...
-
Bienz v. City of Dayton
... ... 637, 560 P.2d 671 (1977); Sutherlin Ed. Assn. v. Sch. Dist., 25 Or.App. 85, 548 P.2d ... ...
-
United Teachers of Dade FEA/United AFT, Local 1974, AFL-CIO v. Dade County School Bd.
... ... Public Employees Relations Commission, 410 So.2d 487 (Fla.1981), we had our ... on so important an aspect of an employment agreement is, in our judgment, an abridgment of ... determination of governmental policy); Sutherlin Education Association v. Sutherlin School ... In Dade County Classroom Teachers Assn., Inc. v. The Legislature, 269 So.2d 684 ... ...