The Association v. City of Portland
Decision Date | 24 April 2002 |
Parties | PORTLAND FIRE FIGHTERS' ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 43, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PORTLAND, Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Monica A. Smith argued the cause for petitioner. On the brief were Robert Reid and Reid & Bates.
Rudolph S. Westerband argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.
Before DEITS, Chief Judge, EDMONDS, LANDAU, HASELTON, ARMSTRONG, LINDER, WOLLHEIM, KISTLER, BREWER, and SCHUMAN, Judges.
Resubmitted En Banc February 6, 2002.
Petitioner, Portland Fire Fighters' Association, Local 43 (the Association), seeks judicial review of a final order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB). In that order, ERB dismissed the Association's complaint, alleging that the City of Portland (the city) violated ORS 243.672(1)(g) by refusing to arbitrate a grievance concerning retiree health insurance benefits.1 We review ERB's factual findings for substantial evidence and its legal conclusions for errors of law. ORS 183.482(8); Lane Unified Bargaining v. South Lane Sch. Dist., 169 Or. App. 280, 282, 9 P.3d 130 (2000), rev. allowed 331 Or. 692, 26 P.3d 148 (2001). Because ERB erroneously concluded that the parties' collective bargaining agreement (CBA) does not authorize the Association to file a "retiree grievance" and have that grievance ultimately arbitrated, we reverse and remand.
The parties stipulated to the following facts before ERB:
The parties submitted the stipulation, together with Joint Exhibits 1-5, to ERB, and both parties waived a hearing.
The grievance filed by the Association alleged that the city had violated the CBA by requiring retired employees and their spouses to pay higher health-care premiums than the city paid for active employees.2 The grievance form used by the Association described the dispute as "[t]he specific terms of the contract are violated by requiring a retiree or retiree's spouse to pay higher health benefit premiums than the rate charged for active employees[.]" The grievance requested as relief that the city "provide remuneration to retirees or retiree's spouses for any premiums paid in violation of the contract" and that the city "follow [the] contract's terms as to retiree and survivor benefits, prospectively."
The procedure under which the Association filed the grievance is detailed in Article 14 of the CBA. Because it is central to our analysis, we set out Article 14 in full:
After the city denied the grievance, the Association sought to submit the dispute to arbitration under Step 4 of the dispute resolution procedure. The city declined to arbitrate the dispute. The Association then filed an unfair labor practice complaint with ERB, alleging that the city had violated the CBA by refusing to submit the grievance to arbitration.3 After a hearing, the hearing officer issued recommended findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed order, concluding that the city had committed an unfair labor practice by improperly refusing to arbitrate the grievance. In a split decision, ERB reversed the hearing officer's proposed order. The Association seeks review of ERB's final order dismissing the complaint. The decisive issue on review—as it was before ERB—is whether the CBA permits the Association to compel the city to arbitrate disputes concerning retiree health insurance benefits.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Arboireau v. Adidas-Salomon Ag
...Elec. Consumers Coop., Inc. v. Co-Gen Co., 168 Or.App. 466, 7 P.3d 594, 601 n. 8 (2000); Portland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 43 v. City of Portland, 181 Or.App. 85, 45 P.3d 162, 167 n. 6 (en banc), rev. denied, 334 Or. 491, 52 P.3d 1056 (2002); City of Eugene v. Monaco, 171 Or.App. 681, 17......
-
Heine v. Bank of Oswego
...the parties in ‘whose favor the provision was made.’ ”) (quoting ORS § 42.260 ). C.f. Portland Fire Fighters' Ass'n, Local 43 v. City of Portland , 181 Or.App. 85, 94 n. 6, 45 P.3d 162 (2002) (citing ORS § 42.260 and stating that “[s]tatutory rules that authorize consideration of extrinsic ......
-
Oregon Southwest, LLC v. Kvaternik
...have held, when a contract contains inconsistent terms, the specific controls over the general. E.g., Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or.App. 85, 95, 45 P.3d 162, rev. den., 334 Or. 491, 52 P.3d 1056 (2002). Therefore, plaintiff argues, the only operative attorney rev......
-
Copeland Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Estate of Dillard
...maxims to govern our interpretation of writings, including deeds, is ORS chapter 42. Portland Fire Fighters' Assn. v. City of Portland, 181 Or.App. 85, 94 n. 6, 45 P.3d 162 (2002), rev. den., 334 Or. 491, 52 P.3d 1056 (2002) (describing ORS chapter 42 rules of interpretation as maxims of co......