Tri-Cnty. Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (TriMet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757

JurisdictionOregon
Parties TRI–COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON (TriMet), a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION LOCAL 757, a labor organization, Defendant–Appellant.
Citation368 P.3d 50,276 Or.App. 513
Docket NumberA154561.,121215684
CourtOregon Court of Appeals
Decision Date18 February 2016

Aruna A. Masih, Portland, argued the cause for appellant. With her on the briefs was Gregory A. Hartman.

Keith M. Garza, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Erik Van Hagen.

Before LAGESEN, Presiding Judge, and HADLOCK, Chief Judge, and WOLLHEIM, Senior Judge.

LAGESEN, P.J.

This appeal arises from a declaratory judgment action under ORS 28.010. Plaintiff, the Tri–County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), sought a declaration that the collective bargaining sessions between TriMet's negotiating team and the bargaining unit for TriMet employees, defendant, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), are not subject to Oregon's Public Meetings Law, ORS 192.610 to 192.695. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of TriMet, concluding that the undisputed facts established as a matter of law that the bargaining sessions between TriMet's negotiating team and ATU were not "meetings" as that term is defined in the Public Meetings Law and, therefore, were not within the scope of the Public Meetings Law. Although we agree with the trial court that the undisputed facts establish as a matter of law that the sessions between TriMet's negotiating team and ATU are not "meetings" for purposes of the Public Meetings Law, we vacate and remand to the trial court for further consideration, in the light of our recent decision in Handy v. Lane County, 274 Or.App. 644, 362 P.3d 867 (2015), rev. allowed, 358 Or. 550, 368 P.3d 25 (2016). In the light of that decision, we are unable to conclude as a matter of law that the Public Meetings Law does not apply to those sessions simply because—as the trial court correctly concluded—those sessions are not "meetings."

I. BACKGROUND
A. The Public Meetings Law

As this case centers on the application of Oregon's Public Meetings Law to the bargaining sessions between TriMet and ATU, we start by providing an overview of that law. The purpose of the Public Meetings Law is to ensure government transparency in Oregon:

"The Oregon form of government requires an informed public aware of the deliberations and decisions of governing bodies and the information upon which such decisions were made. It is the intent of ORS 192.610 to ORS 192.690 that decisions of governing bodies be arrived at openly."

ORS 192.620. To that end, the law regulates the decision-making process of "governing bod[ies]" of "public bod[ies]." A "public body" is any governmental body in Oregon, including a "committee or subcommittee or advisory group or any other agency" of a larger governmental body. ORS 192.610(4).1 A "governing body" consists of the "members of any public body which consists of two or more members, with the authority to make decisions for or recommendations to a public body on policy or administration." ORS 192.610(3).

The law ensures transparency in government primarily through two complementary mechanisms. Both mechanisms are contained in ORS 192.630. First, ORS 192.630(1) requires that any "meeting" of a governing body of a public body be open to the public, unless the topic of the meeting is one that the legislature has said may be addressed in an "executive session" or the meeting is of the sort that is exempted from the Public Meetings Law under ORS 192.690.2 ORS 192.630(1) ; ORS 192.660 ; ORS 192.690. A "meeting" is a "convening of a governing body of a public body for which a quorum is required in order to make a decision or to deliberate toward a decision on any matter." ORS 192.610(5). An "executive session" is "any meeting or part of a meeting of a governing body which is closed to certain persons for deliberation on certain matters." ORS 192.610(2). ORS 192.660 regulates governing bodies' use of executive sessions and identifies the subjects that a governing body may consider in executive session.

Second, ORS 192.630(2) restricts the ability of the members of a governing body to meet outside of the context of a formal "meeting" in order to deliberate or make a decision: "A quorum of a governing body may not meet in private for the purpose of deciding on or deliberating toward a decision on any matter except as otherwise provided by ORS 192.610 to 192.690." ORS 192.630(2). The net effect of those two mechanisms is that a quorum of a governing body cannot meet to deliberate or make a decision in private unless ORS 192.660 authorizes it to do so in an executive session of a meeting or if ORS 192.690 otherwise excludes the governing body from the application of the Public Meetings Law. See Handy, 274 Or.App. at 659, 362 P.3d 867 ("The legislature was not content to require that ‘meetings' be made open to the public; rather, to achieve the statutory purpose, the legislature felt the need to regulate the conduct of public officials in less formal settings.").

B. This Dispute

Although the record evidences some significant factual disputes—the main one relating to whether TriMet's negotiating team qualifies as a "governing body" for purposes of the Public Meetings Law—those disputes, except as otherwise indicated, do not bear on the legal issues presented on appeal. The facts that pertain to those issues are largely undisputed.

TriMet is a mass transit district and municipal corporation of the State of Oregon. ORS 267.010 –267.430. TriMet is governed by a board of directors (the board). ORS 267.120. A General Manager administers all of its affairs. ORS 267.140. Under the Oregon Public Employer Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), ORS 243.650 to 243.782, TriMet is a public employer required to engage in collective bargaining with the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of its employees. ORS 243.650(20) ; ORS 243.672(1)(e). ATU is the exclusive representative of a bargaining unit of TriMet employees and is statutorily required to engage in collective bargaining with TriMet. ORS 243.650(8) ; ORS 243.672(2)(b).

When called upon to collectively bargain with ATU, TriMet conducts its negotiations with ATU through an eight-member negotiating team. The team is headed by TriMet's Executive Director of Labor Relations and Human Resources, Stedman. Stedman selects the other members of the team. The members of that team have the authority to negotiate and enter into a tentative agreement with ATU's bargaining team. There is no minimum number of members of the bargaining team that must be present before the bargaining team can engage in negotiations or take any action.

Once the negotiating teams for both ATU and TriMet reach a tentative agreement, the TriMet negotiating team waits for ATU to ratify the agreement. If ATU ratifies the tentative agreement, then the TriMet negotiating team submits the agreement and all agreed upon resolutions to TriMet's General Manager. The General Manager then relays the agreement to the TriMet board. The board then makes the final decision whether to ratify the agreement.

This dispute arose when, in contemplation of the expiration of the parties' existing collective bargaining agreement, TriMet and ATU began discussing the process for bargaining a successor agreement. Eleven days before the start of the first bargaining session proposed by TriMet, ATU notified TriMet that it "does not consent to negotiations being conducted in executive session[,]" and, therefore, under ORS 192.660(3),3 "TriMet has a duty pursuant to Oregon public meetings law * * * to notify the public as well as those who have expressed interest, as to the date, time and location of the negotiations." (Emphasis in original.) TriMet responded that, under its interpretation of the Public Meetings Law, "[n]o negotiation session will be a public ‘meeting’ * * *." As a result of that response, ATU declared that "[u]nless TriMet provides written notice of its intention to abide by Oregon law and conduct negotiations in the open meeting format * * * the Union will not participate." TriMet refused to provide such notice.

Because the parties could not agree on the correct interpretation of the Public Meetings Law, TriMet filed this action asking for a "judgment declaring that collective bargaining sessions between TriMet's negotiating team and the ATU are not subject to ORS 192.610 et seq., governing public meetings[,]" as well as a declaration "that because collective bargaining sessions between ATU and TriMet's negotiating team are not public meetings, any actions taken in those meetings are not subject to challenge under ORS 192.680." In answer to the complaint, ATU denied that TriMet was entitled to the declarations that it sought, and alleged that ATU was entitled to a declaration that ORS 192.660(3) required TriMet to conduct collective bargaining sessions with ATU in open meetings and an injunction barring TriMet from excluding the public and the media from the bargaining sessions.

The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The trial court denied the motions. In so doing, it rejected ATU's argument that ORS 192.660(3), as a matter of law, required TriMet to conduct labor negotiations in a public meeting, even if those negotiations did not otherwise qualify as a "meeting" as that term is defined in the Public Meetings Law. The court then concluded that there were factual disputes as to whether the bargaining sessions qualified as "meetings" as that term is defined in the Public Meetings Law, as well as factual disputes as to whether TriMet's negotiating team was a "governing body," as that term is defined in the Public Meetings Law, and, thus, subject to the Public Meetings Law.

The parties then filed a second round of summary judgment motions. In support of its second motion, TriMet submitted an affidavit from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist. of Or. (Trimet) v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • 15 Febrero 2018
    ...trial court agreed with TriMet and granted its motion, but the Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757 , 276 Or.App. 513, 368 P.3d 50 (2016). The Court of Appeals reasoned that, even if the bargaining sessions are not "meetings" as that term is d......
  • Rivas v. Bd. of Parole & Post-Prison Supervision
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • 16 Marzo 2016
    ...P.3d 867 (discussing the nature of a "private deliberations" claim under ORS 192.630(2) ); see also TriMet v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 276 Or.App. 513, 525–27, 368 P.3d 50 (2016)(same). But the legislature has provided expressly that the board need not conduct its deliberations ......
  • State v. Kelly
    • United States
    • Oregon Court of Appeals
    • 18 Febrero 2016
  • O'Connor v. Cnty. of Clackamas
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • 31 Mayo 2016
    ...cases cited by Plaintiffs as calling into question either the Court's or the Ninth Circuit's analyses. See Tri-Met v. Amalgamated Transit Union Local 757, 276 Or. App. 513 (2016); Handy v. Lane Cnty., 274 Or. App. 644 (2015). These cases involved claims for relief based on alleged violation......

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