International Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 8 v. Port of Portland
279 Or. App. 157
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Port of Portland uses private contractors for crane maintenance; contractors generally employ ILWU Local 8 members.
- ILWU I (2016) arose from a Port crane-maintenance contractor that did not employ Local 8 members; ERB dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed.
- In ILWU II, the Port issued a 2014 RFP for crane maintenance subcontractors, potentially affecting Local 8 jobs; ILWU alleged PECBA bargaining duties regarding the RFP.
- ERB dismissed ILWU II, applying ILWU I’s finding that the Port does not employ Local 8 members to conclude no PECBA jurisdiction.
- ERB also relied on prior ILWU I conclusions as the “law of the case” and denied a hearing; petitioner sought judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ERB erred in applying law of the case. | ILWU argues law of the case inappropriate here. | Port contends law of the case governs and supports dismissal. | ERB erred; law of the case not binding across proceedings. |
| Whether ERB’s dismissal rested on an independent basis beyond law of the case. | ILWU contends there may be facts supporting jurisdiction independent of ILWU I. | Port asserts no independent basis exists for PECBA jurisdiction. | Remand required to reevaluate disputed issues of fact or law. |
Key Cases Cited
- ILWU, Locals 8 & 40 v. Port of Portland, 279 Or App 146 (2016) (recited law-of-the-case framework and factual background in ILWU I)
- Kennedy v. Wheeler, 356 Or 518 (2014) (law-of-the-case binding definition)
- Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dulcich, 199 Or App 43 (2005) (law-of-the-case limitations in appellate review)