City of LaGrande v. Public Employes Retirement Bd.
| Decision Date | 10 January 1977 |
| Citation | 28 Or.App. 9,558 P.2d 1236 |
| Parties | CITY OF LaGRANDE, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYES RETIREMENT BOARD of the State of Oregon, and Clay Myers, Secretary of State of the State of Oregon, Appellants, and LaGrande Police Association et al., Respondents. CITY OF ASTORIA, a Municipal Corporation, Respondent, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYES RETIREMENT BOARD of the State of Oregon et al., Respondents, and Police and Firefighters of the City of Astoria as a Class, Appellants. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Al J. Laue, Asst. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for appellant (No. 22993) and for respondent (No. 29437) Public Employes Retirement Board of the State of Oregon. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Gary K. Jensen, Eugene, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellants Police and Firefighters of the City of Astoria as a Class (No. 29437) and for respondents LaGrande Police Association, LaGrande Firefighters Union Local No. 924, and International Association of Firefighters (No. 22993).
Ross E. Hearing, LaGrande, filed the brief for respondent City of LaGrande, a Municipal Corporation.
D. Richard Fisher, Astoria, argued the cause for respondent City of Astoria, a Municipal Corporation. With him on the brief were Anderson, Fulton, Lavis & Van Thiel and Robert C. Anderson, Astoria.
James M. Mattis, Staff Atty., League of Oregon Cities, Eugene, filed a brief amicus curiae for city attorneys of constitutional home rule cities of Coos Bay, Gladstone, Rainier, Springfield, Sweet Home, The Dalles and Tigard.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and FORT and THORNTON, JJ.
The City of LaGrande brought a declaratory judgment proceeding in the circuit court for Union County to secure a declaration of its rights and duties and for injunctive relief with reference to the provisions of a 1971 state law requiring that city police officers and firemen be brought under the state Public Employes' Retirement System law as of July 1, 1973, or be provided by the municipality with an equal or better system. ORS 237.610 through 237.640.
Sometime thereafter the City of Astoria brought a similar proceeding in the circuit court for Clatsop County to obtain a declaration as to the same provisions of the state retirement law. In addition, however, Astoria also sought a declaration as to another provision of state law, namely, the statute derecting the state to provide as a minimum $10,000 of life insurance for all city police and firemen, and requiring the cost thereof to be borne by the city. ORS 243.005 through 243.055.
In both LaGrande and Astoria the municipal retirement programs were for all employes, including police and firemen, and were adopted prior to July 1, 1973, as a result of collective bargaining between the respective cities and their employes.
Astoria's life insurance program likewise was for all employes and was adopted through collective bargaining. We can find nothing in the record indicating how long the program had been in existence prior to 1973. The record does show, however, that the program was in existence in 1969, and that in early 1973 the face amount of the coverage for each employe was increased from $5,000 to $10,000, effective July 1, 1973.
The challenged state statutes purporting to require life insurance coverage for all city police and firemen became effective July 1, 1971.
Defendants demurred in both cases on the usual ground and on the further ground of failure to present a justiciable controversy. In both the trial courts subsequently ruled in effect that the retirement benefits for city police and firemen were not matters of state concern, but on the contrary were matters of local concern only, and that the 1973 amendments to the retirement law purportedly requiring that city police and firemen be brought under the state retirement system, were an unconstitutional infringement upon the home rule powers of plaintiff cities. Further, in the Astoria case the court also ruled that the compulsory life insurance policy provisions were likewise unconstitutional.
In these consolidated appeals by defendants the following points are relied upon for reversal: That the trial courts erred (1) in overruling defendants' demurrers and in ruling in favor of plaintiff cities; (2) in holding ORS 237.610 through 237.640 () and ORS 243.005 through 243.055 () were unconstitutional; (3) in failing to recognize that as of July 1, 1973, the rights of employe police and firemen had vested regarding retirement and disability benefits provided under the above sections of the Oregon Revised Statutes.
We take up defendants' assignments seriatim.
(1) and (2) For reasons which follow we conclude that the trial courts did not err in overruling defendants' demurrers and in ruling that the retirement statutes were an unconstitutional infringement upon the home rule powers of the respective cities. Or.Const., Art. IV, § 1(5), and Art. XI, § 2.
The earliest Oregon case dealing with the problem before us is Branch v. Albee, 71 Or. 188, 142 P. 598 (1914). In Branch our Supreme Court held that pensions for Portland police officers were a matter of purely local concern, and ruled unconstitutional a state statute purporting to regulate such pensions as a violation of the above cited home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution.
More recently, in State ex rel. Heinig v. Milwaukie et al., 231 Or. 473, 373 P.2d 680 (1962), the same court, relying on Branch, held that the employment and discharge of personnel in a city fire department were matters of local, rather than state, concern and therefore the firemen's civil service law (ORS 242.702 to 242.990) was ineffective to require a home rule city to establish a state-mandated civil service system for city firemen.
Following Heinig, in Beaverton v. I.A. Fire Fighters, 20 Or.App. 293, 531 P.2d 730, Sup.Ct. Review denied (1975), this court considered the constitutionality of a state law regulating labor relations between public employers, including cities, and their employes. After an extensive examination of the authorities, and following the precedents of Branch and Heinig, we concluded that under the home rule provisions of the Oregon Constitution (Art. IV, § 1(5) and Art. XI, § 2), labor relations between the city and its employes were predominantly a matter of local concern and that the legislature was therefore prohibited from attempting to legislate on those matters where the city's interest is paramount. 1 Accord: City of Hermiston v. ERB, 27 Or.App. 755, 557 P.2d 681 (1976).
Applying the principles laid down in the above authorities, including the Heinig balancing test, to the case at bar, we must reach the conclusion that a retirement system for city police and firemen is likewise a matter of predominantly local concern, and that the respective trial courts did not err in ruling that the challenged statutory provisions were an unconstitutional infringement on the home rule powers of plaintiff cities.
We agree with plaintiffs that it is not necessary for a city charter or ordinance to set forth expressly a retirement plan or system for its employes in order for a home rule city to provide such a plan or system through the exercise of other powers granted by its charter, here the power to bargain collectively with those employes as to employe benefits, including retirement and pension rights. Beaverton v. I.A. Fire Fighters, supra. Once the power to establish a retirement system is lawfully exercised, the city's prerogatives cannot be infringed upon by the legislature or the state. Branch v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of La Grande v. Public Employes Retirement Bd.
...Constitution. The respective trial courts agreed with this claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a consolidated appeal, 28 Or.App. 9, 558 P.2d 1236 (1977). In granting review, we specifically asked the parties to discuss these 1. In State ex rel. Heinig v. Milwaukie et al, 231 Or. 473, 37......
-
State, By and Through Haley v. City of Troutdale
...destroy uniformity and in effect be permitting the city to do indirectly that which it cannot do directly. See, City of LaGrande v. PERB, 28 Or.App. 9, 558 P.2d 1236 (1977). Likewise we cannot accept defendants' further contention that ORS 456.785 and the state structural code delegate to l......