Fire Fighters v City of Everett :: 146 Wn2d 29
Category: Employer Employee Relations
Or, “Plain Rendering of the Text v Judicial Activism.” The heart of this case is the tendency of the courts to commit judicial activism under the guise of “liberally construing.” There are, of course, poorly written laws which force the courts to attempt to hold their tongues just right while issuing a decision, but this case is not one of them.
At issue in this case is the proper interpretation of RCW 49.48.030, which states:
“In any action in which any person is successful in recovering judgment for wages or salary owed to him, reasonable attorney’s fees, in an amount to be determined by the court, shall be assessed against said employer or former employer.”
In June 1997, the City of Everett (City) suspended two union employees without pay for a 24 hour shift for willfully tampering with and damaging their fire station’s electrical system. The International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 46 (Local 46), on behalf of the employees, brought a grievance against the City, arguing the suspension violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement between Local 46 and the City. Both sides submitted the dispute to arbitration. The arbitrator decided in favor of the employees and awarded them back pay.
Local 46 then asked the City to pay for their attorney fees. The City refused, and Local 46 sued. The trial court decided in the City’s favor—a decision which was overturned by the Court of Appeals, Division One. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appeals Court decision.
So what’s the problem with the Court’s decision? There are at least two, actually. Firstly, even though a labor union can be considered a legal person, Local 46 was not owed any salary by the City, and this statute therefore does not apply to it. Secondly, as Justice Alexander argued at 146 Wn2d 52, only a judge can render a judgment; arbitration is not the same as a judicial proceeding, and the arbitrator’s decision is not a judgment for wages or salary.
Only by torturing and “liberally construing” the plain text of the statute can its plain meaning be altered to line up with the majority’s decision. As the City argued, rejecting the plain rendering of the text will be a windfall for unions. We agree. Such judicial activism undermines the fundamental constitutional doctrine of the separation of powers.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Eberhardt, Charles Nisbet | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Madsen, Barbara | |
| pass | May, Janet K | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Smith, Paul Edgar | |
| pass | Soine, Mark T | |
| pass | Thorpe, Richard | |
| fail | Agid, Susan | |
| fail | Appelwick, Marlin | |
| fail | Bridge, Bobbe | |
| fail | Chambers, Tom | |
| fail | Cox, Ronald | |
| fail | Ireland, Faith | |
| fail | Owens, Susan | |
| fail | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Webster, James Henry | |
| fail | Weir, Lynn Denise |