Petitioners sought review of certified ballot title for initiative petition relating to rights and obligations that public employers, their employees, and the unions representing those employees owed each other under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA).
The Supreme Court of Oregon held that:
- Caption did not reasonably identify subject matter of ballot tile;
- “yes” and “no” vote result statements were inadequate; and
- Summary was inadequate in stating that measure would prevent public employer from establishing nonunion employee compensation and employment terms by union contract.
Caption for ballot initiative, “Public employer cannot compensate non-union employee based on union contract; limits union representation of non-members,” did not reasonably identify subject matter of initiative. Caption was too narrow and focused on only some of the measure’s major effects, to the exclusion of other major effects, such as establishing employment terms differently for union and nonunion public employees.
Result statement in certified ballot title, that a “yes” vote would prohibit public employers from compensating nonunion employees based on union contract, was inadequate in failing to disclose that the initiative would divide employees within a bargaining unit into two groups, union and nonunion, and establish terms of employment differently for each group.
Result statement for ballot title relating to public employment, that a “no” vote would retain current law in that unions represented all public employees in organized bargaining unit, was inadequate in neglecting to disclose that it was currently unlawful to provide different employment terms based on union membership.
Summary for ballot title relating to public employment, stating in part that measure would prevent public employer from establishing nonunion employee compensation and employment terms by union contract, was misleading in not mentioning that the measure would require public employers to undertake an individualized assessment of each nonunion employee’s qualifications in setting that employee’s terms of employment.
Summary for ballot title relating to public employment, stating in part that measure prohibited requiring nonunion members to pay cost for representation unless they benefit from representation, was not misleading. By stating dependent “unless” clause as an exception to prohibition on requiring nonmembers to pay representation costs, the summary did not express an opinion on how a union could collect fees from nonunion members if they benefited from representation.