The Oregon state employee., July 01, 1947, Page 10, Image 10

8
to the following recitals from the at­
torney general’s opinion.
1. "Vacation” is defined as,-’ "sur­
cease from regular duty,” "relief from
duty,” "respite,” "a period of exemp­
tion from work.” We see in these def­
initions a direct reference to an em­
ployees leave of absence from his work,. -
We do not see that this has any con­
nection: with his employer’s work
schedules.
2. The opinion states “w e believe
the provision for two calendar week’s^
vacation is consistent with the act in
that it will provide at least twelve days
annual leave with pay to._every em­
ployee | . .” This opinion is predicated
on the Commission’s statement that
present rules provide, in effect,yfor two
calendar weeks ‘y aca tion. We reiterate
that neither the present rules' nor the
act itself even infer a two weeks vaca­
tion as constituting an B annual leave.
The act speaks in days and.the present
and proposed rules likewise. The ex­
pressing of anyr vacation leave in terms
of weeks or as an annual leave appears
to be presumptive.
jf|ra It is possible that misunderstand­
ing was present when the opinion stated
“The phrase in Section 3, of your Rule
XVIII, referring to a business day as a
.working day” was .entirely proper and
gave rise to no copfaasion at the time
the rule was adopted, for .the reason
that working days generally for state
employees then were all b u i i n e s 's
days.
No mention of the term "business
day” appears in the Section 3, of the
rule cited, and it would seeimthat the
opinion was based, in this respect, on
a misunderstanding of the facts. It is
also pointed out that at the time the
present rules -were adopted, the great
majority of employees were employed
5 working days—— not 6 business days,
days.’
Section 2, of Rule XVIII, says "leaves
of absence shall be computed to the
n earest^k.d a y,” and also states ''de­
ductions shall not be made for holi­
days or non-work days occurring at
the beginning, during dr at the end
of 4 period of leave with pay . . .”
This present rule indicates further that
working days and business days were
not even Considered to be synonymous
at the time the present rules- were
adopted. It is doubtful if there was
at that time any confusion in the
meaning of the term non-work days.
4. Continuing, the opinion makes
clear that the term "business day” ,’is
properly applicable to state depart­
ments and institutions as being a day
on which they remain open for busi­
ness; and, that their working days and
business days can thus be construed
as beings identiçaj. We point out that
when msed in reference to a depart­
ment, the terms hâve ah entirely dif­
ferent application than when used in
reference t o an employee’skfèyyQ of ab­
sence from his work as granted under
law.
It is not supercilious, in attempting
to fathom the mind of thé legis­
lature, to ponder on their use of the
term "26 work dâW” in establishing
the maximum cumulative vacation for
the employee. The quantity'is not di­
visible evenly by 5,
o ra n y
other number of either Work days or
business I daÿsj, except 2,'-l‘;^3^ and 26;
Can there now be an interpretation of
-the intent in this respect by facts such
as this? I
The opinion concludes w ith’its coij-
s true tion of Section 1 8, of’ thpTâW to
mean that annual vacation with pay
was intended, to be computed at .one
business day’s" leave earned for each full
calendar month of service, subject to
mra| limitation of accumulation of vaca­
tion.
Under this constructiohy lthe law
would, i’ô' effect, read as follows; I
"Annual vacation with pay shall be
.granted all- regular employees in ac­
cordance, yvvitly rules adopted by the
board of two calendar weeks and. may
be cumulative. No vacations in excess
of 26 days, excluding' Sundays and
holidays shall be granted in. any : one
year-.”, j I
¡Comparison w ith the law as passed
by the legislature will disclose inter-