My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm.
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2005
>
CC Agenda - 07/25/05 WS
>
Item B: Meeting w/Police Comm.
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:14:05 PM
Creation date
7/21/2005 8:45:31 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
7/25/2005
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
87
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Re: Civilian Review <br />June 7, 2005 <br />Page 10 <br /> <br />good faith with the exclusive representative" of a labor organization. ORS 243.672(1)(e). As <br />part of the obligation to bargain in good faith, public employers and labor organizations must <br />bargain over matters concerning employment relations, also referred to as "mandatory subjects" <br />of bargaining. ORS 243.656. <br /> <br /> Matters such as what personnel-related information will be shared with the CRB in an <br />open meeting, and who may review investigatory information and outcomes, would likely be <br />mandatory subjects of bargaining. <br /> <br /> The extent to which the investigation will involve the disclosure of personal information <br />about the employee is most likely a mandatory subject of bargaining. Springfield Police Assoc. v. <br />City of Springfield, 16 PECBR 712, 722 (1996). Proposals related to the contents and disclosure <br />of personnel files are generally mandatory subjects of bargaining. Id. <br /> <br /> The time lines for the investigation will need to be bargained if the participation of the <br />review board extends the length of the investigation. Oregon Public Employees Union v. State of <br />Oregon, 14 PECBR 746, 769 (1993). In OPEU, the Employee Relations Board found that <br />employees had a strong interest in either being charged or cleared in timely manner, while the <br />employer had no interest in unreasonable delay in the investigative process. <br /> <br /> For more detailed information about bargaining issues, please review the opinion dated <br />March 1, 2005. <br /> <br /> If you have additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office. <br /> <br /> HARRANG LONG GARY RUDNICK P.C. - <br /> CITY ATTORNEYS <br /> <br /> /s/SHARON A. RUDNICK <br /> <br /> Sharon A. Rudnick <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.