Opinion

James v. Employment Division

  • 20 Or. App. 309
  • 531 P.2d 710
  • 1975 Ore. App. LEXIS 1620
Court
Court of Appeals of Oregon
Filed
Feb 10, 1975
Status
Published
Author
Thornton
On the bench
Schwab, Foley, Thornton
Cited by
7 cases

The opinion

THORNTON, J.,

dissenting.

I agree that the rule applicable here is as stated in the majority opinion, namely, that the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB) cannot overturn disciplinary action taken by a public employer (dismissal in this case) unless PERB can say that no reasonable employer would have dismissed petitioner on account of his conduct.

I cannot, however, agree with the conclusion of PERB and the majority that no reasonable state employer would have discharged this petitioner on the basis of the record in this case. On the contrary, I find that the record establishes a course of conduct by petitioner, a top-level executive, that no reasonable public agency head would countenance. Some of petitioner’s conduct is set out in the margin. ①

*316 To conclude as does PERB and the majority that no reasonable public employer would have discharged petitioner on the basis of this execrable conduct is too much for me to accept. I do not believe that the State Employment Division should be compelled to have petitioner anywhere in its agency, as PERB’s order requires.

I would reverse PERB and uphold the dismissal.

For example, both the hearing officer and PERB found:

“* * * [Petitioner], in communicating with and to staff members, used words, terms and expressions including: ‘bullshit’; ‘you’re a goddam nitpicker’; ‘doesn’t know shit from shinola’; ‘bastard’; ‘bitch’; ‘son-of-a-bitch’; ‘pissed-off’; ‘fricking’.

“* * * [Petitioner] stated that employes approaching retirement had to do as he told them out of fear of losing their jobs.

“* * * [Petitioner] told employes to ‘shut up’ in staff meetings, was often critical in presence of staff and public, and told and [sic] assistant manager in the presence of staff, ‘you don’t know shit from shinola.’

“* * * [Petitioner] made hand contact with employes, male and female. Some of these contacts consisted of patting female employes on the rump in the presence of others.

*316 “* * * * [Petitioner] on numerous occasions voiced opinions and inquired of the sex life and accommodations of female members of his staff.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.