Filed: February 21, 2003

WASHINGTON COUNTY POLICE OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION
and PAUL CUFF,

Petitioners on Review,

v.

WASHINGTON COUNTY,

Respondent on Review.

On review from the Court of Appeals.*

Argued and submitted November 6, 2002.

Jaime B. Goldberg, of Garrettson, Goldberg, Fenrich & Makler, Portland, argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners on review.

Sheryl Hayashida, Senior Assistant County Counsel for Washington County, Hillsboro, argued the cause and filed the briefs for respondent on review.

Barbara J. Diamond, of Smith, Gamson, Diamond & Olney, Portland, filed a brief for amici curiae AFSCME Council 75, Oregon Education Association and Portland Fire Fighters' Association.

Before Carson, Chief Justice, and Gillette, Durham, Riggs, De Muniz, and Balmer, Justices.**

GILLETTE, J.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for further consideration.

*Judicial Review from the Employment Relations Board. 181 Or App 448, 45 P3d 515 (2002).

**Leeson, J., resigned January 31, 2003, and did not participate in the decision of this case.

GILLETTE, J.

This is an unfair labor practice case in which the dispositive issue is whether an arbitration award that ordered the reinstatement of a county public safety employee who admitted to possessing and using marijuana while off duty complies with "public policy requirements as clearly defined in statutes or judicial decisions." ORS 243.706(1). The Employment Relations Board (ERB) concluded that the award did comply, because it did not violate any clearly defined contrary public policy. The Court of Appeals reversed. Washington Cty. Police Assn. v. Washington Cty., 181 Or App 448, 45 P3d 515 (2002). That court held that reinstating the employee was contrary to public policy and, thus, that the reinstatement award was unenforceable. We allowed review and now hold that, under the facts presented, reinstating the employee does not violate any "public policy requirement[] as clearly defined in statutes or judicial decisions." Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the matter to that court for further consideration.

We take the following undisputed facts from the decision of the Court of Appeals and from the record. The parties to this case are Washington County (the county), one of its employees, Paul Cuff (the employee), and the union that represents the employee, the Washington County Police Officers' Association (the association). The employee is a deputy sheriff for the county and a member of the bargaining unit represented by the association. When the present dispute arose, the employee was working as a corrections officer in the county's transport division, driving inmates into and out of the county in a commercial-sized bus. Federal law requires the county to test all such employees operating commercial motor vehicles for drug use. 49 CFR