Lake v. Stubbert
This text of 617 P.2d 640 (Lake v. Stubbert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and other employees of the city of Roseburg’s Water Division, brought this suit to compel defendant, who is the City Manager of Roseburg,1 to grant them vacation benefits based on their years of service for both the city and their previous employer, the Oregon Water Corporation. Trial was had on stipulated facts, and the trial court entered an "order” awarding plaintiffs the relief sought.2
On December 15, 1977, the city of Roseburg purchased and took control of the Roseburg-Oakland facilities of the Oregon Water Corporation. The parties to that transaction agreed that the employment of all the corporation’s employees would be terminated at that time, but the city had the right to rehire the employees of the corporation, and those employees had the right to refuse employment with the city.
Prior to December 15, the defendant, in his capacity as City Manager, delivered to each of the corporation’s employees an offer of employment with the city in its Water Division, commencing December 15. Included in that letter was the following language:
"Vacation: The City’s vacation policy is one in which vacation time can be taken for time earned after the first year probationary period has been completed. * Note: We will request to the council that the probationary period be shortened to a six-month period so that some accrued vacation time could be taken off this summer.”
Plaintiffs and other former employees of the corporation accepted the offer and commenced working for the city in the Water Division on December 15. On March 26,1978, the employees delivered a letter to the Public Works Director for the city, claiming unfair treatment with respect to vacations. Plaintiffs considered that [450]*450letter to be the first step in the grievance procedure under the personnel rules of the city.
On March 29, the Public Works Director answered the employees’ letter, outlining the city’s policies, reviewing the previous negotiations relating to the personnel of the former corporation, and stating that in the writer’s opinion the matter presented by the employees was not "a grievable matter.” On April 6, the employees responded and requested a meeting with defendant under what they designated "Step 3” of the city’s grievance procedure. Defendant did not answer that letter, because he agreed with the Public Works Director’s view that the matter was not "grievable.”
In the negotiations between the city and the corporation it was agreed that the corporation would give money allowances in lieu of vacation time to those employees who were being terminated by the corporation for the accumulated vacation time they had earned in the employment of the corporation. Those payments were made by the corporation.
The relevant portions of the city’s personnel rules are set out in the margin.3
[452]*452The trial court found that the claim of the employees was "grievable” under the city’s grievance procedure and that, therefore, the failure of the defendant to comply with Step 3 brought into play paragraph 5 of the procedure, which in effect says that if the city fails to follow its own procedure in a timely fashion it is required to resolve the matter in favor of the employees. His order directed the defendant to grant the Water Division employees who had previously worked for the corporation vacation benefits based on their years of service for both the corporation and the city. We have set out that vacation policy in footnote 3 for the sake of factual clarity, but the merits of plaintiffs’ asserted grievance are not before us. The only issue presented is whether their letters of March 26 and April 6 presented "a grievable matter.”
The trial court pointed out that "grievance” is undefined under the city’s rules and proceeded to say:
"Secondly, the Court analogizes to the collective bargaining situation. Where a collective bargaining agreement exists and 'grievance’ is undefined, the Court must give the term its ordinary meaning. Pac. Tel. & Tel. vs. Communications Workers of America, 199 F Supp 689, 692 (Dist. Oregon 1961), reversed on other grounds 310 F 2d 244 (1962); Butte Miners’ Union No. 1 vs. Anaconda Co., 159 F Supp 431, 435 (Dist. Montana 1958), affirmed 267 F 2d 940 (1959); Gillam vs. Roadway Exp. Inc., 206 NE 2d 34, 35 (1965). A liberal and broad construction should be given to the term grievance. United Steel Workers of America vs. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 US 574, 581, 80 S Ct 1347, 1352 (1960); Forrest Industries, Inc. vs. Local Union No. 3-436, 381 F 2d 144, 146 (9th Cir 1967).”
Applying those well established rules of construction, he found that the claim asserted by the plaintiffs was [453]*453a grievable matter, and we agree. He did not, however, expressly interpret the whole phrase "grievances relating to employment conditions and relationships” that appears in the grievance procedure. Defendant argues essentially that on the merits the employees had nothing to complain about because their entitlement to vacation had been negotiated and settled before they became city employees. That is beside the point. The employees asserted a claim of entitlement to vacation on a specified basis and that that entitlement had been denied by the city. Thus, they were asserting a grievance "relating to employment *** relationships.” Under the city’s procedure, the defendant was required by Step 3 to respond. He did not, and as a consequence paragraph 5 came into play.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
617 P.2d 640, 48 Or. App. 447, 1980 Ore. App. LEXIS 3507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lake-v-stubbert-orctapp-1980.