Hammer v. Oregon State Penitentiary, Corrections Division
| Decision Date | 29 December 1975 |
| Citation | 23 Or.App. 743,543 P.2d 1094 |
| Parties | Jerry HAMMER, Petitioner, v. OREGON STATE PENITENTIARY, CORRECTIONS DIVISION, et al., Respondents. |
| Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Henry H. Drummonds, Eugene, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Kulongoski, Heid, Durham & Drummonds, Eugene.
Al J. Laue, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salem, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Lee Johnson, Atty. Gen., and W. Michael Gillette, Sol. Gen., Salem.
Before SCHWAB, C.J., and LANGTRY and FORT, JJ.
Petitioner was suspended and dismissed from his position as corrections officer at the Oregon State Penitentiary for chronic and excessive absenteeism on the ground that such conduct constituted 'unfitness to render effective service' under ORS 240.555(1). Petitioner appeals from an order of the Public Employe Relations Board (PERB) affirming his dismissal. He was a classified employe under the State Merit System Law, ORS ch. 240.
Petitioner claims error because no showing was made that he was unfit to work at the time of his discharge and because the hearing granted him was insufficient to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The evidence at the hearing was that at the time petitioner was hired at the Oregon State Penitentiary in January 1972 he had a sciatic nerve injury from active service in Vietnam. In October 1973 petitioner injured his back while on the job. He also suffered from hypertension.
As a result of his back injury and other health problems petitioner was frequently absent from work in 1973 and 1974. PERB found that while absences due to the on-the-job injury were not cognizable in a discharge proceeding, petitioner was absent 143 3/4 hours in 1973 and 169 hours in 1974 in addition to all his regular sick leave and to time loss caused by his back injury.
PERB also found that absenteeism created a serious problem at the penitentiary. Security positions of necessity had to be filled. Absence on short notice required working officers overtime and disrupting their schedules until a relief person could be located. This created a hardship since a number of corrections officers had been absent frequently. Petitioner's record was worse than that of any of the other security officers.
Penitentiary personnel had notified petitioner both orally and in writing several times that his absence record was a serious problem and that he might be disciplined or discharged if his performance did not improve. He was notified at least five times during 1974 that his attendance record was unsatisfactory, the last time on October 21, 1974. After that date petitioner was absent five days in October and November. On December 3, 1974, petitioner was suspended for ten days without pay and then discharged.
After a hearing held January 22 and 23, 1975, a report from its hearing examiner, and oral argument, PERB, on June 6, 1975, upheld the dismissal.
The first question before us is whether PERB had evidence before it to conclude that absences averaging over 19 days per year in addition to authorized sick leave here constitute unfitness to render effective service under ORS 240.555(1).
Petitioner claims that after November 4, 1974, his back problem and hypertension were in remission and that he could not be discharged without a medical examination to establish that he was unable to work. At the hearing he produced a cryptic note from his doctor stating that he thought petitioner was medically able to work, but nothing more.
We believe that PERB's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Petitioner was hired as a full-time employe. His health problems other than those related to his on-the-job injury have had the effect of making him a part-time employe with unpredictable periods of absence. This has resulted in disruption in the manning of security posts at the penitentiary and, upon occasion, hardship on his fellow workers as stated above. The Board found that petitioner was not wilfully absent for reasons other than health. Nonetheless, after considering his two-year...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tupper v. Fairview Hospital and Training Center, Mental Health Division
...this court for review of that decision. We granted these petitions, as well as those in the companion case, Hammer v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 23 Or.App. 743, 543 P.2d 1094 (1975), in order to consider what types of pretermination and post-termination procedures are constitutionally requi......
-
Hammer v. Oregon State Penitentiary, Corrections Division
...Penitentiary violated the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution. Hammer v. Oregon State Penitentiary, 23 Or.App. 743, 543 P.2d 1094 (1975). This court agreed with the Court of Appeals but modified the remedy, holding that Hammer was entitled to an ......
-
Oregon State Penitentiary v. Hammer, No. 76-1377
...but it limited the award of back wages to the period between the date of his dismissal and the date of his subsequent hearing. 23 Or.App. 743, 543 P.2d 1094 (1975). 2 Although four of us disagree with the Court's disposition of this case, the Justices who join this opinion do not insist tha......
-
Hammer v. Oregon State Penitentiary, Corrections Division
...and filed briefs for respondent/cross-petitioner. HOWELL, Justice. This is a review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 23 Or.App. 743, 543 P.2d 1094 (1975), which upheld the Public Employe Relations Board's (PERB) decision affirming Hammer's dismissal from public employment at the Orego......