Josephine County is the subject of a formal Unfair Labor Practice complaint filed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 3694 with the Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB). The complaint, officially filed on March 31, 2025, outlines multiple alleged violations of Oregon’s Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), accusing the County of adopting and implementing sweeping changes to employment policies without first engaging in mandatory bargaining with the union representing its workers.
The dispute arose during successor contract negotiations between the County and AFSCME, which began in February 2024 in preparation for the expiration of their previous agreement set for June 30, 2024. The parties agreed on ground rules that allowed either side to raise issues freely during the first four sessions. Any new issues introduced afterward would require mutual agreement. The parties met more than a dozen times throughout the year and reached a tentative agreement on December 10, 2024.
Despite this ongoing process, AFSCME claims the County failed to disclose its plans to overhaul the existing Personnel Policy Manual. The Union became aware of potential policy changes in October 2024 and formally requested related documents from the County. On November 21, 2024, the County provided a draft of a new manual, which was set to apply to all employees, including those in the bargaining unit.
According to the complaint, the County never raised these policy changes during bargaining sessions. On December 6, 2024, the Union demanded that the County maintain the status quo until bargaining was completed. Despite this request, the County adopted the new Personnel Policy Manual on December 31, 2024, with final approval by the Board of County Commissioners following on January 2, 2025. The Union asserts that the final version of the manual was never shared with them prior to its implementation.
The manual introduced several significant changes that the Union contends are mandatory subjects of bargaining under Oregon law. These include the introduction of a strict timekeeping system requiring employees to clock in and out at the beginning and end of each shift and meal period. Employees must also record time whenever they leave the building for reasons unrelated to County business. The policy includes disciplinary measures for failing to clock in properly, with repeated violations potentially resulting in termination. Clocking in or out for another employee is explicitly prohibited.
The County also implemented a GPS tracking policy for employees using County vehicles. Under the new rule, employees must use a GPS-enabled fob when operating a County vehicle, and may not use someone else’s device. This type of electronic surveillance had not been discussed or negotiated with the Union prior to its rollout and, according to the complaint, falls squarely within the scope of mandatory bargaining due to its impact on safety, oversight, and discipline.
Another area of concern outlined in the complaint is the revision of the County’s Domestic Violence Leave policy. The updated version removes reference to protections provided under the Oregon Family Leave Act (OFLA) and instead allows employees to use accrued paid time off (PTO) to maintain their income. The Union argues that this change reduces employee benefits and protections and was implemented without consultation.
Additionally, the County adopted a new Witness Duty policy that limits compensation for employees serving as witnesses in legal proceedings. Time spent testifying will now only be considered work time if it occurs during scheduled hours, and if the employee submits any received witness fees. The Union claims this change impacts both compensation and leave and should have been subject to bargaining.
Perhaps the most controversial change cited in the complaint is a new rule prohibiting employees from engaging in any conduct that could be seen as “contradictory” to the Board of County Commissioners or that might reflect poorly on County service. The Union argues that this rule could be used to punish employees for engaging in protected union activities, including striking, speaking publicly about labor issues, or challenging County decisions. The complaint characterizes this policy as a direct interference with employee rights under the PECBA.
The County also implemented a Voluntary Resignation Program in February 2025, which offers financial incentives to employees who choose to resign. The Union was not informed of the program before its adoption and contends that it undermines the size and strength of the bargaining unit by encouraging departures. They argue this diminishes the Union’s financial resources and its ability to effectively represent remaining employees.
The Union’s legal team, led by attorneys Jason M. Weyand and Evianna A. Colvin of the Tedesco Law Group, alleges the County’s actions violated several provisions of ORS 243.672. These include interfering with employees’ rights to organize and participate in union activity, undermining the Union’s role as the exclusive representative of employees, refusing to bargain in good faith over mandatory subjects, and failing to comply with specific provisions of the collective bargaining statutes.
The complaint asserts that the County’s attempt to implement these changes outside of the formal negotiation process not only violates legal standards but also undermines the collective bargaining relationship itself. The Union points to a pattern of evasion, claiming the County chose to bypass established procedures and then attempted to cover its actions using expedited processes that were not appropriate under the circumstances.
As part of the remedy, the Union is requesting that the ERB declare the County in violation of the PECBA and order it to cease and desist from enforcing any of the policies enacted without bargaining. They also seek an order requiring the County to rescind the conduct policy targeting speech “contradictory” to the Commissioners, restore the previous status quo, and provide compensation to any employees negatively affected by the changes. The Union is also asking for reimbursement for lost union dues resulting from the Voluntary Resignation Program, as well as a civil penalty, attorney fees, and the distribution of violation notices across County worksites and email systems.
The Employment Relations Board will now review the complaint and determine the next steps, which may include scheduling a formal hearing. If the ERB finds in favor of the Union, it could result in sweeping changes to County employment policies and set a significant precedent for public labor relations across Oregon.
As of this writing, Josephine County officials have not issued a public response to the complaint. The legal process could extend for several months, depending on the complexity of the case and the ERB’s review schedule.