We agree that, whatever bearing other statutes might ultimately be determined to have on the permissible scope and terms of the collective bargaining negotiations and agreement between district and the union, PECBA is initially and facially applicable to those matters. See Sutherlin Ed. Assn v. Sch. Dist., 25 Or. App. 85, 548 P.2d 204 (1976); see also East Co. Bargaining Council v. Centennial Sch. Dist., 298 Or. 146, 689 P.2d 958 (1984); Central Point Sch. Dist. v. ERB, 27 Or. App. 285, 555 P.2d 1269 (1976), rev den 277 Or. 491 (1977). A discharge of an employe in violation of the agreement would constitute at least a facial unfair labor practice under ORS 243.672 (1)(g), and petitioner alleged that his discharge violated the agreement as well as the act.

We have held that ERB has exclusive jurisdiction over unfair labor practice complaints. School District 115 v. OSEA, 64 Or. App. 685, 669 P.2d 821, rev den 296 Or. 253 (1983); AFCME v. Executive Dept., 52 Or. App. 457, 628 P.2d 1228, rev den 291 Or. 771 (1981); see also East Co. Bargaining Council v. Centennial Sch. Dist., 298 Or. 146, 689 P.2d 958 (1984); Smith v. State of Oregon, 31 Or. App. 15, 569 P.2d 677 (1977), rev den 281 Or. 99 (1978). The claim should not have been submitted to the jury.