Service Employees Int'l Union Local 503 v. U of O

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Labor Law
  • Date Filed: 06-16-2021
  • Case #: A170000
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Armstrong, P.J. for the Court; Tookey, J.; & Aoyagi, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

The Employment Relations Board "must assess the third Colton factor in its own right... without reference to [its] ultimate conclusion that the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of disclosure under" ORS 243.672(1)(e). Oregon School Employees Association, Chapter 68 v. Colton School District 53, Case No. C-124-81 R 5, 6 PECBR 5027, 5031 (1982).

Petitioner sought judicial review of a final order from the Employment Relations Board (ERB) which found Petitioner failed to prove a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest in the information it sought to withhold from Respondent. Petitioner assigned error to ERB's analysis of the Colton factors. Petitioner argued that ERB relied on "improper circular reasoning" to reach the conclusion that Petitioner did not establish a sufficient confidentiality interest in the information. In response, Respondent argued that Petitioner misrepresented ERB's order and that ERB's analysis of the third Colton factor was legally sound. The Employment Relations Board "must assess the third Colton factor in its own right... without reference to [its] ultimate conclusion that the totality of the circumstances weighs in favor of disclosure under" ORS 243.672(1)(e). Oregon School Employees Association, Chapter 68 v. Colton School District 53, Case No. C-124-81 R 5, 6 PECBR 5027, 5031 (1982). The Court held that ERB improperly applied the Colton factors, particularly the third factor, because it relied on its ultimate conclusion that disclosure was required when determining whether Petitioner had a legitimate and substantial confidentiality interest. The Court reasoned that ERB should have applied a balancing test that considered the totality of the circumstances to determine whether Respondent's need for particular information outweighed the Petitioner's confidentiality interest. Reversed and remanded.

Advanced Search


Back to Top