No. 200 March 27, 2024 649 This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Peter SHARVY, Petitioner, v. OREGON EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, MESD Education Association, and Multnomah Education Service District, Respondents.

Employment Relations Board FR00122; A179566 Submitted October 6, 2023.

P. Benjamin Sharvy filed the briefs pro se.

Julie D. Reading and Bennett Hartman, LLP, filed the brief for respondents Oregon Education Association and MESD Education Association.

No appearance for respondent Multnomah Education Service District.

Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Egan, Judge, and Kamins, Judge.

TOOKEY, P. J.

Affirmed.

650 Sharvy v. Oregon Education Assn.

TOOKEY, P. J.

In this case under the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act (PECBA), petitioner has filed a pro se brief seeking judicial review of an order of the Employment Relations Board (ERB) (1) dismissing his claim of an unfair labor practice against his employer, the Multnomah Education Service District (the district), charging a vio- lation of ORS 243.672(1)(g) (describing as an unfair labor practice a violation of “the provisions of any written contract with respect to employment relations”); and (2) dismissing his claim of “unfair representation” against his union, the Oregon Education Association—Multnomah Education Service District Education Association (the union), under ORS 243.672(2)(a) (which makes it an unfair labor prac- tice for a labor organization to “[i]nterfere with, restrain or coerce any employee in or because of any rights guaranteed under ORS 243.650 to 243.806”) for failing to pursue his unfair labor practice claim against the district. ERB dis- missed petitioner’s complaint without a hearing after deter- mining that he had failed to plead sufficient facts to allege that the union had violated its duty of fair representation.

ERB therefore did not reach petitioner’s claim against the district.

We review ERB’s order under ORS 183.482, for substantial evidence, substantial reason, and errors of law.

We decline to address petitioner’s unpreserved contentions that ERB’s construction of ORS 243.672 is in violation of court precedent and constitutional provisions, and that ORS 240.060, which establishes ERB, violates the Oregon Constitution. As to petitioner’s remaining contentions, we conclude that petitioner has failed to raise proper assign- ments of error and, further, has failed to establish that ERB erred in dismissing the claims. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.