Ohnstad v. City of Tacoma
| Decision Date | 03 September 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 37311,37311 |
| Citation | 395 P.2d 97,64 Wn.2d 904 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Nels OHNSTAD, Rodny M. McCord, Axel Haglund and Howard Bray, Respondents. v. CITY OF TACOMA, Appellant. |
Marshall McCormick, City Atty., and Robert R. Hamilton, Tacoma, for appellant.
Lycette, Diamond & Sylvester, and Lyle L. Iversen, Seattle, for respondents.
Retired employees (hereinafter called the plaintiffs) of the Tacoma Transit Company (hereinafter called the Company) bring this action to compel the city of Tacoma (hereinafter called the City) to pay them the pension to which they were entitled under an agreement (hereinafter called the Pension Agreement) between the Company and the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Division No. 758 (hereinafter called the Union).
Until April, 1961, pension payments were made to the plaintiffs from a pension fund into which the individual employees of the Company (Union members) had paid $3.25 each month prior to February, 1961. The Company was required by the Pension Agreement to 'contribute each month an amount equal to the total of the contribution made to said pension fund by all of the employees hereunder.' Employee contributions ceased as of February 1, 1961; and the reason for this cessation was that the City, on that date, acquired for $750,000 all of the physical assets of the Company and commenced the operation of the various bus routes formerly operated by the Company which constituted an urban transportation system. Practically all of the then employees of the Company became employees of the City. Again, with practical unanimity, these new employees of the City became members of the Tacoma City Employees Pension Plan.
Payments to pensioners were continued until April, 1961, at which time their pension fund was depleted.
The plaintiffs commenced this action December 28, 1961, under the declaratory judgment act, for a determination of their rights under the Pension Agreement and Laws of 1961, chapter 139, § 4, which became effective June 8, 1961, and which provides:
'Any municipal corporation which has heretofore or shall hereafter acquire from a private owner any urban transportation system which at the time of such acquisition has or had in effect any pension or retirement system for its employees, shall assume all such obligations with respect to continued contributions to and/or administration of, such retirement system, as the private owner bore or shall bear at such time, insofar as shall be necessary to discharge accrued obligations under such retirement system to beneficiaries who are not thereafter made members of a municipal or state retirement system.' (p. 1687)
The trial court concluded that the City had succeeded to the obligations of the Company to the plaintiffs, as beneficiaries under the pension plan, by reason of the provisions of Laws of 1961, chapter 139, particularly § 4 thereof. With reference to the extent of these obligations, it concluded:
'The obligation of the Tacoma Transit Company was only to match contributions to the pension fund made by currently actively employed members of Local 758 of the Amalgamated Association of Street and Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, and no such contributions to said funds having beem made by any active employee since February 1, 1961, the defendant, City of Tacoma, has been under no obligation to contribute any funds to said pension system.' Conclusion of Law No. 3
Whichever of the plaintiffs' theories we accept: (1) that under the terms of the Pension Agreement the City succeeded to the Company's obligations to the plaintiffs; or (2) that under the provisions of Laws of 1961, chapter 139, particularly § 4 thereof, the City assumed the Company's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rupe
...practice of this court that when a case can be decided on other grounds we decline to consider constitutional issues. Ohnstad v. Tacoma, 64 Wash.2d 904, 395 P.2d 97 (1964). II Our decision in State v. Bartholomew, 101 Wash.2d 631, 683 P.2d 1079 (1984) (Bartholomew II) is directly contrary t......
-
Isla Verde Intern. Holdings v. CAMAS
...not reach constitutional issue); Senear v. Daily Journal-Am., 97 Wash.2d 148, 152, 641 P.2d 1180 (1982) (same); Ohnstad v. City of Tacoma, 64 Wash.2d 904, 906, 395 P.2d 97 (1964) (same); see also Skagit Surveyors & Eng'rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wash.2d 542, 546, 958 P.2d 962 ......
-
Wash. State Farm Bureau Feder. v. Gregoire
...not reach constitutional issue); Senear v. Daily Journal-Am., 97 Wash.2d 148, 152, 641 P.2d 1180 (1982) (same); Ohnstad v. City of Tacoma, 64 Wash.2d 904, 907, 395 P.2d 97 (1964) 8. This opinion refers collectively to all of the petitioners, including Governor Christine Gregoire, the State ......
-
State v. Ng
...absolutely necessary to its determination of the case. State v. Claborn, 95 Wash.2d 629, 632, 628 P.2d 467 (1981); Ohnstad v. Tacoma, 64 Wash.2d 904, 907, 395 P.2d 97 (1964). It is well established that constitutional errors may be so insignificant as to be harmless. State v. Guloy, 104 Was......