Harryman v. Roseburg Rural Fire Protection Dist.
| Decision Date | 10 November 1966 |
| Citation | 244 Or. 631,420 P.2d 51 |
| Parties | H. B. HARRYMAN, Respondent, v. ROSEBURG RURAL FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, Appellant. |
| Court | Oregon Supreme Court |
Edward M. Murphy, Roseburg, argued the cause for appellant. On the brief were Stults, Jayne & Murphy, Roseburg.
No appearance for respondent.
Before McALLISTER, C.J., and PERRY, O'CONNELL, DENECKE and REDDING, JJ.
This is an action to recover the value of unused sick leave accumulated by plaintiff while employed by defendant. Defendant appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiff.
Plaintiff was employed as a fireman by defendant. His employment was terminated on June 1, 1965, at which time he had accumulated 47 days of sick leave. Defendant refused to pay for the accumulated time on the ground that its sick leave provision allowed compensation only where there was an excused absence from work due to illness, and on the ground that the provision had been revoked prior to plaintiff's termination of employment. The provision, adopted by the board of directors of defendant at a special meeting on June 29, 1960, was as follows:
'Sick Leave:
One (1) day per. month, up to 90 days, Cash On termination.'
This language would seem to have no meaning other than to express the purpose of making provision for unused sick leave accumulated by an employee prior to the termination of his employment. The officers of defendant understood this to be the defendant's policy. In a written declaration of policy issued in 1964 and signed by the chairman and secretary of the board of directors, the following statement was made:
'If and or when an employe leaves the employment of the district, the employe will remain on the pay roll and receive wages the same as if the employe were on sick leave, and continue until such time all the employe's accumulated sick leave is used. Such pay will be mailed to the employe each pay period by the pay master and will be classified as Sick Leave Pay.
'However the employe shall retain the right to receive all accumulated sick pay in one lump payment.'
Defendant argues that even if the sick leave provision is to be construed as plaintiff contends, the provision was not lawfully adopted because it was voted upon at a special meeting on June 29, 1960, notice of which did not specify the consideration of sick leave as a proposed item of business. We find it unnecessary to pass upon the sufficiency or the necessity of notice in the circumstances of this case because these questions were not properly presented to the trial court. Defendant objected to introduction of the minutes of the special meeting on the ground noted above. The trial court held that the minutes were admissible and that the validity of the action taken by the board of directors at the meeting was a question separate from the admissibility of the minutes. Defendant did not raise the question of the validity of the meeting in any other way. Consequently, the trial judge was never given the opportunity to rule directly upon the validity of the meeting.
Moreover, if the question had been raised directly, it is quite possible, indeed probable, that plaintiff could have shown that the action taken at the June 29th meeting was subsequently ratified by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rose City Transit Co. v. City of Portland
...Co., 20 F.Supp. 1 (E.D.Ill.1937). See Parsley v. Wyoming Automotive Company, 385 P.2d 291 (Wyo.1967). Cf., Harryman v. Roseburg Fire Dist., 244 Or. 631, 420 P.2d 51 (1966). Since all the payments to the non-union employes were by virtue of a resolution of the board of directors and there wa......
-
Butterfield v. State of Oregon
...the court reviewed its holdings in Crawford v. Teachers' Ret. Fund Ass'n, 164 Or. 77, 99 P.2d 729 (1940), Harryman v. Roseburg Rural Fire Dist., 244 Or. 631, 634, 420 P.2d 51 (1966), and Taylor v. Mult. Dep. Sher. Ret. Bd., 265 Or. 445, 452, 510 P.2d 339 (1973), among others. The court summ......
-
Oregon State Police Officers' Ass'n v. State, 1
...with respect to services that the employee already has performed. This court answered that question in Harryman v. Roseburg Rural Fire Prot. District, 244 Or. 631, 420 P.2d 51 (1966). In Harryman, a fireman commenced work under a retirement rule that said that he was entitled to receive pay......
-
Moro v. State
...consistently—has applied that general employment contract principle in the public employment benefit setting. In Harryman v. Roseburg Fire Dist., 244 Or. 631, 420 P.2d 51 (1966), for example, the defendant employer adopted a sick leave policy that provided for cash in lieu of accumulated si......