1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. P.2d
  4. 905 P.2d
  5. 905 P.2d 838 (1995)
 

FOPPO v. STATE, DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS

ERB UP-51-91; CA A81631; SC S42133.

905 P.2d 838 (1995)

322 Or. 215

FEDERATION OF OREGON PAROLE AND PROBATION OFFICERS, Respondent on Review, v. STATE of Oregon, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Petitioner on Review, and Multnomah County, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Oregon.

Decided November 2, 1995.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Richard D. Wasserman, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner on review. With him on the petition were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Daryl S. Garrettson, of Hoag, Garrettson, Goldberg & Fenrich, Portland, argued the cause for respondent on review. With him on the brief was Taylor L. Jacobson.

Before CARSON, C.J., and GILLETTE, VAN HOOMISSEN, FADELEY, UNIS, and GRABER, JJ.

GRABER, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether the State of Oregon, acting through the Department of Corrections, (ODOC) committed an unfair labor practice when it declined to bargain with the Federation of Oregon Parole and Probation Officers (FOPPO) over the terms and conditions of the "intergovernmental agreement" that resulted when Multnomah County (county) decided to transfer certain correctional officers from employment with ODOC to employment with the county...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases