2015 ORS 243.746¹
Selection of arbitrator
  • arbitration procedure
  • last best offers
  • bases for findings and opinions
  • sharing arbitration costs

(1) In carrying out the arbitration procedures authorized in ORS 243.712 (Mediation upon failure to agree after 150-day period) (2)(e), 243.726 (Public employee strikes) (3)(c) and 243.742 (Binding arbitration when strike prohibited), the public employer and the exclusive representative may select their own arbitrator.

(2) Where the parties have not selected their own arbitrator within five days after notification by the Employment Relations Board that arbitration is to be initiated, the board shall submit to the parties a list of seven qualified, disinterested, unbiased persons. A list of Oregon interest arbitrations and fact-findings for which each person has issued an award shall be included. Each party shall alternately strike three names from the list. The order of striking shall be determined by lot. The remaining individual shall be designated the "arbitrator":

(a) When the parties have not designated the arbitrator and notified the board of their choice within five days after receipt of the list, the board shall appoint the arbitrator from the list. However, if one of the parties strikes the names as prescribed in this subsection and the other party fails to do so, the board shall appoint the arbitrator only from the names remaining on the list.

(b) The concerns regarding the bias and qualifications of the person designated by lot or by appointment may be challenged by a petition filed directly with the board. A hearing shall be held by the board within 10 days of filing of the petition and the board shall issue a final and binding decision regarding the person’s neutrality within 10 days of the hearing.

(3) The arbitrator shall establish dates and places of hearings. Upon the request of either party or the arbitrator, the board shall issue subpoenas. Not less than 14 calendar days prior to the date of the hearing, each party shall submit to the other party a written last best offer package on all unresolved mandatory subjects, and neither party may change the last best offer package unless pursuant to stipulation of the parties or as otherwise provided in this subsection. The date set for the hearing may thereafter be changed only for compelling reasons or by mutual consent of the parties. If either party provides notice of a change in its position within 24 hours of the 14-day deadline, the other party will be allowed an additional 24 hours to modify its position. The arbitrator may administer oaths and shall afford all parties full opportunity to examine and cross-examine all witnesses and to present any evidence pertinent to the dispute.

(4) Where there is no agreement between the parties, or where there is an agreement but the parties have begun negotiations or discussions looking to a new agreement or amendment of the existing agreement, unresolved mandatory subjects submitted to the arbitrator in the parties’ last best offer packages shall be decided by the arbitrator. Arbitrators shall base their findings and opinions on these criteria giving first priority to paragraph (a) of this subsection and secondary priority to paragraphs (b) to (h) of this subsection as follows:

(a) The interest and welfare of the public.

(b) The reasonable financial ability of the unit of government to meet the costs of the proposed contract giving due consideration and weight to the other services, provided by, and other priorities of, the unit of government as determined by the governing body. A reasonable operating reserve against future contingencies, which does not include funds in contemplation of settlement of the labor dispute, shall not be considered as available toward a settlement.

(c) The ability of the unit of government to attract and retain qualified personnel at the wage and benefit levels provided.

(d) The overall compensation presently received by the employees, including direct wage compensation, vacations, holidays and other paid excused time, pensions, insurance, benefits, and all other direct or indirect monetary benefits received.

(e) Comparison of the overall compensation of other employees performing similar services with the same or other employees in comparable communities. As used in this paragraph, "comparable" is limited to communities of the same or nearest population range within Oregon. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the following additional definitions of "comparable" apply in the situations described as follows:

(A) For any city with a population of more than 325,000, "comparable" includes comparison to out-of-state cities of the same or similar size;

(B) For counties with a population of more than 400,000, "comparable" includes comparison to out-of-state counties of the same or similar size;

(C) Except as otherwise provided in subparagraphs (D) and (E) of this paragraph, for the State of Oregon, "comparable" includes comparison to other states;

(D) For the Department of State Police troopers, "comparable" includes the base pay for city police officers employed by the five most populous cities in this state; and

(E) For Department of State Police telecommunicators, as defined in ORS 181A.355 (Definitions for ORS 181A.355 to 181A.670), "comparable" includes the base pay for telecommunicators employed by the five public safety answering points in this state, as defined in ORS 403.105 (Definitions for ORS 305.823 and 403.105 to 403.250), with the most employees.

(f) The CPI-All Cities Index, commonly known as the cost of living.

(g) The stipulations of the parties.

(h) Such other factors, consistent with paragraphs (a) to (g) of this subsection as are traditionally taken into consideration in the determination of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment. However, the arbitrator shall not use such other factors, if in the judgment of the arbitrator, the factors in paragraphs (a) to (g) of this subsection provide sufficient evidence for an award.

(5) Not more than 30 days after the conclusion of the hearings or such further additional periods to which the parties may agree, the arbitrator shall select only one of the last best offer packages submitted by the parties and shall promulgate written findings along with an opinion and order. The opinion and order shall be served on the parties and the board. Service may be personal or by registered or certified mail. The findings, opinions and order shall be based on the criteria prescribed in subsection (4) of this section.

(6) The cost of arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties involved in the dispute. [1973 c.536 §19; 1995 c.286 §10; 2001 c.104 §76; 2009 c.878 §1; 2015 c.769 §1]

Note: Section 3, chapter 769, Oregon Laws 2015, provides:

Sec. 3. The amendments to ORS 243.746 (Selection of arbitrator) by section 1 of this 2015 Act apply to interest arbitration hearings commenced on or after the effective date of this 2015 Act [July 27, 2015]. [2015 c.769 §3]

Law Review Cita­tions

32 WLR 69 (1996)

See also annota­tions under ORS 243.711 to 243.760 in permanent edi­tion.

Notes of Decisions

Savings clause in chapter 536, Oregon Laws 1973, did not prevent applica­tion of expanded bargaining rights to collective bargaining agree­ment then in force. Redmond Sch. Dist. No. 2J v. Pub. Employe Rela­tions Bd., 19 Or App 212, 527 P2d 143 (1974)

The board had authority to review, sec­tion by sec­tion, a city ordinance governing labor rela­tions between the city and its employes and to hold invalid those pro­vi­sions purporting to govern matters of predominantly state-wide concern and which were in conflict with the 1973 Act. City of Beaverton v. Intl. Assn. of Fire Fighters, 20 Or App 293, 531 P2d 730 (1975), Sup Ct review denied

Board order, defining appropriate bargaining unit and ordering representa­tion elec­tion, was interlocutory in nature and was not "final order" subject to judicial review within meaning of ORS 183.480 (Judicial review of agency orders). City of Hermiston v. Employ­ment Rela­tions Board, 280 Or 291, 570 P2d 663 (1977)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board's policy of adhering to arbitra­tion decisions in sub­se­quent related pro­ceed­ings advances legislative purpose, and is proper exercise of authority to administer this act. Siegel v. Gresham Grade Teachers Associa­tion, 32 Or App 541, 574 P2d 692 (1978)

Public Employes' Collective Bargaining Law did not bar state agency from using state time and funds to campaign against labor organiza­tion in representa­tion elec­tion. OSEA v. Depart­ment of Commerce, 34 Or App 727, 579 P2d 872 (1978)

Juvenile counselor appointed pursuant to [former] ORS 419.604 did not acquire collective bargaining rights granted by these sec­tions where there was no showing that juvenile court judge had expressly authorized employer representatives to bargain on counselor's behalf concerning terms and condi­tions of his employ­ment. Schmidt v. Jackson County Juv. Dept., 49 Or App 349, 619 P2d 1307 (1980)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board employed scope of review contrary to Public Employe Rela­tions Act when it reviewed merits of arbitra­tion award rather than only its repugnancy to Public Employe Rela­tions Act. Willamina Ed. Assoc. v. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J, 50 Or App 195, 623 P2d 658 (1981)

Since Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act is general law addressed primarily to substantive social, economic and other regulatory objectives of this state which do not affect freedom of local community to choose its own po­lit­i­cal form, it does not mandate structural and organiza­tional arrange­ments of local govern­ments contrary to Oregon Constitu­tion, Article XI, sec­tion 2. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)

State's decision to enact Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act supersedes city's power to allow its voters to arbitrate unresolved labor disputes and grant of power by Oregon Constitu­tion, Article IV, sec­tion 1 to legislate by popular vote does not affect state's power in this area. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or 266, 639 P2d 90 (1981)

Arbitrator's failure to conclude that school district violated collective bargaining agree­ment by violating statutory require­ments incorporated into agree­ment was not sufficiently egregious to be reversible as being "repugnant" to act. Eugene Educ. Assoc. v. Eugene School Dist 4J, 58 Or App 140, 648 P2d 60 (1982)

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board formula­tion of test for review of arbitra­tion awards in en­force­­ment pro­ceed­ings which would permit en­force­­ment of arbitrator's award unless (1) parties did not, in a written contract, agree to accept such an award as final and binding or (2) en­force­­ment of the award would be contrary to public policy, was consistent with policies of Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act. Willamina Sch. Dist. 30J v. Willamina Ed. Assn., 60 Or App 629, 655 P2d 189 (1982)

Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act require­ment that juvenile court judge bargain in good faith with representatives of juvenile counselors and refrain from es­tab­lishing terms and condi­tions of counselors' employ­ment in viola­tion of applicable contractual pro­vi­sions did not constitute an undue burden or in­ter­fer­ence with his judicial func­tions under [former] ORS 419.604 or the separa­tion of powers pro­vi­sion contained in Article III, sec­tion 1 of the Oregon Constitu­tion. Circuit Court v. AFSCME, 61 Or App 311, 657 P2d 1237 (1983), aff'd 295 Or 542, 669 P2d 314 (1983)

Public Employe Collective Bargaining Act applies to the Judicial Depart­ment and is not inconsistent with ORS 1.002 (Supreme Court) or 1.008 (Personnel plan, fiscal plan and property plan). Lent v. ERB, 63 Or App 400, 664 P2d 1110 (1983), Sup Ct review denied

Employ­ment Rela­tions Board did not exceed statutory authority under Public Employes Collective Bargaining Act in designating appropriate bargaining unit which consists of police dispatchers who are employes who can strike and police of­fi­cers who are forbidden from striking. City of Canby v. Canby Police Associa­tion, 68 Or App 317, 680 P2d 1033 (1984), Sup Ct review denied

Statutory purpose to provide uniform basis for employe organizing and bargaining would be subverted by holding that statute authorizing county civil service system supersedes collective bargaining re­quired by this Act. AFSCME v. Clackamas County, 69 Or App 488, 687 P2d 1102 (1984)

Board had authority to order restitu­tion where union collected "fair share" pay­ments from nonunion public employees without complying with safeguards instituted to protect employees' rights of free speech and associa­tion. Elvin v. OPEU, 313 Or 165, 832 P2d 36 (1992)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

School law on media­tion as an exclusive pro­ce­dure, (1971) Vol 35, p 961; seniority as a related economic issue, (1972) Vol 35, p 1134; legality of binding arbitra­tion in public employ­ment collective bargaining, (1972) Vol 36, p 18; validity of collective bargaining agree­ments between county intermediate educa­tion district and local educa­tion associa­tion on transfer of sick leave, (1975) Vol 37, p 328; authority of teachers to strike during contract year in absence of collective bargaining agree­ments, and to engage in picketing, (1975) Vol 37, p 732

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 7-69 (1971); 54 OLR 337-371 (1975); 56 OLR 457 (1977); 21 WLR 454 (1985); 70 OLR 969 (1991); 28 WLR 259 (1992); 32 WLR 69, 707 (1996)

Chapter 243

Notes of Decisions

Effect of Public Employe Rela­tions Act is to modify authority of Personnel Division so that, while division retains responsibility for es­tab­lishing general job salary grades and classifica­tions, specific salary within each range which is paid to employe in public employe bargaining unit is subject to negotia­tion or arbitra­tion under terms of this chapter. AFSCME v. Executive Dept., 52 Or App 457, 628 P2d 1228 (1981), Sup Ct review denied

Provision of collective bargaining agree­ment giving present employes lateral transfer rights was valid under ORS 240.321 (Collective bargaining) and fact that its imple­menta­tion resulted in male succeeding female employe did not violate state af­firm­a­tive ac­tion statutes. State Executive Dept. v. OPEU, 91 Or App 124, 754 P2d 582 (1988)

Atty. Gen. Opinions

State agencies paying carpooling employes' parking fees, (1974) Vol 36, p 1015

Law Review Cita­tions

51 OLR 23, 44 (1971)


1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 243—Public Employee Rights and Benefits, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ors243.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2015, Chapter 243, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­ano243.­html (2015) (last ac­cessed Jul. 16, 2016).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent.