Opinion
UP-117-89; CA A69143
Argued and submitted March 16, 1992
Affirmed July 8, 1992 Petitioner's motion for reconsideration allowed by opinion October 14, 1992 See 116 Or. App. 572, 841 P.2d 704 (1992)
Judicial Review from Employment Relations Board.
Harrison Latto, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.
Daryl S. Garrettson, Portland, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were William J. Gibbons and Aitchison, Hoag, Vick Tarantino, Portland.
Before Buttler, Presiding Judge, and Rossman and De Muniz, Judges.
PER CURIAM
Affirmed.
Oregon State Department of Corrections (Department) seeks judicial review of final order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB). ERB determined that Department had committed an unfair labor practice, ORS 243.672(1)(e), when it refused to bargain with the Federation of Oregon Parole and Probation Officers, the collective bargaining representative of Department's employees, before requiring an employee to submit to a drug test.
ERB relied on our opinion in Tualatin Valley Bargaining v. Tigard School Dist., 106 Or. App. 381, 808 P.2d 101, rev allowed 312 Or. 16 (1991), in holding that mandatory drug testing is a "matter concerning" employee discipline and job security, which are "other conditions of employment" within the meaning of ORS 243.650(7), thus making the testing a mandatory subject for bargaining. Department contends that we erred in that case by interpreting Portland Fire Fighters Assoc. v. City of Portland, 305 Or. 275, 751 P.2d 770 (1988), to have modified the analysis in Springfield Education Assn. v. School Dist., 290 Or. 217, 621 P.2d 547 (1980), to determine whether balancing was required.
ORS 243.650(7) provides:
"`Employment relations' includes, but is not limited to, matters concerning direct or indirect monetary benefits, hours, vacations, sick leave, grievance procedures and other conditions of employment."
Although we do not believe that we did that in Tualatin Valley, unless and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, that case controls.
Affirmed.