IBEW Local 89 v. Wallan

ORS 183.480(1) allows “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order” to seek judicial review if they can show one or more of the following: (1) the petitioner has “suffered an injury to a substantial interest resulting directly from the challenged governmental action”; (2) the petitioner “seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered”; or (3) the petitioner has “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness to the proceeding.” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02 (1991).

State Representative Wallan appealed a dismissal of a request for judicial review of a final order made by the Employment Relations Board certifying IBEW Local 89 as the exclusive representatives of a collective bargaining unit of legislative assistants. Wallan argued that the harms identified in the affidavits established eligibility to seek judicial review. ORS 183.480(1) allows “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an order” to seek judicial review if they can show one or more of the following: (1) the petitioner has “suffered an injury to a substantial interest resulting directly from the challenged governmental action”; (2) the petitioner “seeks to further an interest that the legislature expressly wished to have considered”; or (3) the petitioner has “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure concrete adverseness to the proceeding.” People for Ethical Treatment v. Inst. Animal Care, 312 Or 95, 101-02 (1991) (PETA). The Court found the statements in the affidavits did not identify any personal stake consistent with the third PETA factor because they alleged only institutional harms. The Court also found that the Wallan was not “legally affect[ed]” in some way as required by the third PETA factor because her statements identified speculative circumstances. Petition for judicial review dismissed.