Amalgamated Transit Union v. TriMet

Collective bargaining agreements “generally are interpreted in the same manner as are other contracts.” OUS v. OPEU, 185 Or App 506, 512, 60 P3d 567 (2002). If a provision is unambiguous, no further analysis is necessary or appropriate, and the court must “give the appropriate effect to the parties’ intentions.” Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, 341 Or 321, 332, 142 P3d 1044 (2006).

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet) petitioned for judicial review of a final order by the Employment Relations Board (ERB) in favor of Amalgamated Transit Union, Division 757 (ATU). In that order, ERB concluded that TriMet had violated ORS 243.672(1)(g), which establishes that a public employer commits an unfair labor practice if it violates an agreement to arbitrate. On appeal, TriMet argued that the alleged violation of the arbitration clause, in this case, within the collective bargaining agreement with ATU, was not a dispute that required TriMet to follow the arbitration clause. Additionally, TriMet argued that ERB erroneously focused its legal analysis on a presumption in favor of arbitration. Collective bargaining agreements “generally are interpreted in the same manner as are other contracts.” OUS v. OPEU, 185 Or App 506, 512, 60 P3d 567 (2002). If a provision is unambiguous, no further analysis is necessary or appropriate, and the court must “give the appropriate effect to the parties’ intentions.” Industra/Matrix Joint Venture v. Pope & Talbot, 341 Or 321, 332, 142 P3d 1044 (2006). The Court of Appeals held that ERB did not err when it ruled that TriMet had committed an unfair labor practice in violation of ORS 243.672(1)(g) because the arbitration clause of the collective bargaining agreement unambiguously required TriMet to arbitrate “all grievances relating to any alleged violation of any provision of the agreement”.

Affirmed.