United Academics of OSU v. OSU

A substantial reason argument alleging insufficient reference to the record or consideration of the evidence (or "cherry-picking") misconstrues the standard as laid out in Jenkins, which does not require a complete recounting of all evidence. Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or. App. 822, 838, 404 P.3d 1048 (2017), rev. den., 362 Or. 508, 424 P.3d 724 (2018). While it may be possible to draw different inferences from the evidence, that does not imply that the inferences drawn by the ERB were unreasonable, and the Court is not empowered, under its standard of review, to displace reasonable and reasoned inferences drawn by the Board. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or. 266, 271, 639 P.2d 90 (1981).

Oregon State University (OSU) petitioned for judicial review of a final order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB). OSU assigned error to the ERB's application of ORS 243.670 and to the lack of evidence in support of the ERB's decision. On appeal, OSU posed two arguments: (1) the ERB misconstrued the provisions of 243.670 when coming to its decision; and (2) the ERB's inferences and ultimate legal conclusions were not reasonable ones, such that its order was not supported by substantial evidence and substantial reason. Union responded by asserting that the ERB's order was correct in all respects. A substantial reason argument alleging insufficient reference to the record or consideration of the evidence (or "cherry-picking") misconstrues the standard as laid out in Jenkins, which does not require a complete recounting of all evidence. Mendacino v. Board of Parole, 287 Or. App. 822, 838, 404 P.3d 1048 (2017), rev. den., 362 Or. 508, 424 P.3d 724 (2018). While it may be possible to draw different inferences from the evidence, that does not imply that the inferences drawn by the ERB were unreasonable, and the Court is not empowered, under its standard of review, to displace reasonable and reasoned inferences drawn by the Board. City of Roseburg v. Roseburg City Firefighters, 292 Or. 266, 271, 639 P.2d 90 (1981). The Court held that while different inferences could be drawn from the record, the ERB's inferences were not unreasonable. Affirmed.