Image provided by: SEIU Local 503; Salem, OR
About The OSEA news. (Salem, Oregon) 1970-1981 | View Entire Issue (June 1, 1970)
Page 4 The OSEA News <0$EAzfew June, 1970 H E A D Q U A R T E R S O F F IC E P O R T L A N D B R A N C H O F F IC E 1515 Stole Street, Salem, Oregon, 97301 I 1432 S.W. Sixth A venue, P o rtlan d, Oregon, 97201 o f P .O . Box 2307, Salem, Oregon, 97308 Telephone: 224*1870 Telephone: 581*1505 P ublished monthly by the Oregon State Employes A sso ciatio n ORÉGON STATE ASSOCIATION we §|§| Ç 3; \ | SHOULD LET MISS R alph ... do muoh A J PRESIDENT *7 ' GERARD JLJE S E R TZ 2708 NE 22nd PwtiBnd 97212 ¿ pastpsewent SMITH FRENCH |1 9J2 E < EMPLOYE R RAVMOf “ATfON INSURANCE L E S T E R B. S T R IC K L E R P 0 .0 o x 1 2 2 9 E«B«e 97401 2112 F W St. C e r a te 8 W 106 MB 62/ltJ Aye. Delegation of Duty When the legislature by statute requires a state board or commission to perform certain duties, those duties, if they involve the use of “ discretion" or "judgm ent," may not be delegated to some officer or employe of the agency. In a recent California case the Los Angeles County charter placed the duty of classification of positions (in the classified service) on the county civil service commission. The commission tried to delegate this duty to an officer in its employ called the "secretary and chief examiner." A California court refused to let the commission lighten its burden in this way. The court said: "M erely administrative and ministerial functions may be delegated to assistants whose employment is authorized, but there is no authority to delegate acts discretionary or quasi-judicial in nature. An ad ministrative board cannot legally confer upon its employes authority that under the law may be exer cised only by the board." The court made some effort to point out how the commission could get its work done. It explained that even though responsibility for the classification of positions rested with the commission, the gathering of information and data could be done by subordinates and such subordinates could even make recom mendations and draft proposed findings or orders. " I t suffices that the judgment and discretion finally exercised" is that of the board or commission required by law to perform the duty involved, the court declared. Oregon m erit system law requires various types of duties to be performed by the "appointing authority" of each agency. OSEA is presently pursuing an appeal concerning two duties which it claims involve the exercise of discretion by the appointing authority. Watch the OSEA News for further developments. Rights For All "Rights intended to protect all must be extended to all, lest they so fall into desuetude in the course of denying them to the worst of men so as to afford no aid to the best of men in time of need."—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Murphy in Goldman v. U.S., 316 US 129. In our days of social "crisis, conflict and change" greater attention is being given to human and legal rights. Minorities and younger people are asserting their rights strongly. At the same time, studies and polls show that an alarming number of citizens would be willing to suspend Bill of Rights provisions in favor of order and tranquillity. Insistence upon rights is showing more in em ployment relations matters. Increasing numbers of employes refuse to accept suspensions or dismissals without their "day in court." Workers are questioning the authority of employers to regiment their dress and behavior. A fascinating line of state and federal court decisions have reversed disciplinary actions taken for off-the-job conduct said to reflect adversely on an "agency's image." Several cases of OSEA representation in what might be unpopular situations have been heard recently. One involved the length of a young man's hair; another saw an apparently less liked employe retained over a more popular fellow worker on a lay-off; the question of "conduct reflecting discredit upon the service" arose in a case concerning an employe's personal credit difficulties. . In each of these cases the job rights of the employe were protected, but not without strong protest on the part of fellow employes, in at least one case, as to whether or not the employe should have been represented. They were reminded of Justice Murphy's principle that the rights of each employe must be preserved so that the same rights w ill be available to the rest of the employes in time of need. R a u » L Sex 3&7A Myrtle-Creek 9746? 4 R IC H A R D YO UN G 3949 Summers Lene Klamath F*tte97601 6. D O N A LD K E L L E Y 740 SW 28th Pendleton 97891 6. W IL L IA M P LE M M O N S 7 EARL W ARZYNSKt The Calles 9705ft 3. THEODORE THOMPSON SOS NHoitadey Crète Seaside 97138 9, M Y R T L E J A R V IS Station A G riffith Raft THOMAS C. ENRIGHT lative Representation and fteseátoh C .Û .J O R A N S É N E x e c u tiv e A s s is ta n t Oper ations J O H N S . I R v iN Staff Attorney D O N A L D G. O LD S D O N A L O A . B E N IN O ER C. P O L A N S K I D A L E E. L É Á C H Public Relations Manager and Editor W s ) » - » a" «omwiffttcsKi«» t e w S ew « a m e « I § § * tn<* Cl«« P o s ta l to d at 0 -, + •» $yhlK«t«<0<I ' Í H . ¥ l'.Ö W -v > s > ru azK icw (■■■■ m o t t o -, S ÎO Û to w o ttii-s , 2 6 i fw t c a n , i«jn a l tee , Qntÿix- H a u eotUtoy«' 4«art-t»0id<>*9a'iwtrt«t<)
