Opinion
No. 90-1735
Submitted October 16, 1991 —
Decided December 18, 1991.
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Stark County, No. CA-8016.
On May 23, 1988, appellee Canton City Board of Education ("the Board") adopted an early retirement plan in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement with appellee/cross-appellant Canton Professional Educators' Association ("CPEA") and pursuant to R.C. 3307.35. Subsequently, on June 13, 1988, the Board adopted additional provisions permitting eligible administrative staff, who were not subject to the collective bargaining agreement, also to retire early.
CPEA and the Board disagree as to whether permitting administrative staff to retire early resulted in the creation of a new plan, or an extension of the plan adopted under the collective bargaining agreement. The trial court concluded that only one plan, covering both CPEA members and administrative staff, was adopted. Because the Board provided administrative staff with the same early retirement rights as those CPEA obtained through the collective bargaining process, the entire set of provisions will be referred to collectively throughout this opinion as the Board's "early retirement plan," where appropriate.
The plan established a retirement period of January 1, 1989 to December 31, 1989. Those who elected to retire under the plan could select a retirement date from any date within that year. To be eligible to participate in the early retirement plan, however, the prospective retiree had to (1) submit an official ERI-2 form (prepared by the State Teachers Retirement System) to the Superintendent of the Canton City School District no later than November 4, 1988, indicating his or her intention to retire upon a date certain during 1989, and (2) at the same time, tender his or her resignation effective upon the date indicated on the ERI-2 form.
In addition to these requirements, the plan required a prospective retiree to be at least fifty years of age as of December 31, 1989, be employed by the Canton City School District and be currently contributing to the State Teachers Retirement System, and be eligible for service retirement upon the purchase of his or her service credit. Appellees do not dispute that Fincher met these three requirements at all times relevant to this action.
In September 1988, James O. Fincher resumed serving as a "Coordinator III," an administrative position that he had held for several years before a one-year assignment as a teacher. The position involved working with school committee workers and parent involvement groups through the administrative office of the Canton School District. Upon learning of the early retirement plan, Fincher did not at first intend to participate and did not submit the required form ERI-2 or his resignation by the November 4, 1988 deadline. In May 1989, however, after an unexpected hospitalization for a serious illness, Fincher reconsidered his retirement decision and sought to request retirement in accordance with the early retirement plan. He filed a form ERI-2 with the Board but failed to include his resignation as required by the plan.
On June 29, 1989, the Board rejected Fincher's application because it was untimely and because it did not include his resignation. Fincher then resubmitted the form ERI-2 to the Board with a conditional resignation. On July 20, 1989, the Board again rejected Fincher's attempt to retire under the plan because it had not been filed by the November 4, 1988 deadline.
Fincher subsequently filed this action for injunctive and declaratory relief in the Stark County Common Pleas Court on August 18, 1989, seeking an order allowing his participation under the early retirement plan. In his complaint, he asserted that the November 4, 1988 cutoff date violated the requirement in R.C. 3307.35 that such a plan remain open for one year.
The trial court tried the case on its merits on October 20, 1989. The testimony and evidence presented and the arguments of counsel centered upon the question of whether an application period shorter than a year was permissible under the statutory framework established by the General Assembly. On October 31, 1989, the trial court issued its opinion, holding that the Board's early retirement plan conformed with the law, and that Fincher was not eligible to participate in the program because he had failed to file his application before its deadline.
Upon appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the trial court, overruling appellant's assignment of error. The court also overruled CPEA's cross-appeal of the trial court's determination that one plan, and not two separate plans, covered both appellant and CPEA's membership. Finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Wayne County in Hummel v. Rittman Exempted Village School (Nov. 23, 1988), Wayne App. No. 2370, unreported, 1988 WL 126703, the court certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination.
Roetzel Andress, Gary W. Spring and Paul L. Jackson, for appellant.
Squire, Sanders Dempsey, Eric M. Oakley and Martin Harris; Albu, Ionno Chapman and Thomas P. Albu, for appellee and cross-appellee Canton City School District Board of Education. Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy Macala Co., L.P.A., Ronald G. Macala and Anne Piero Silagy, for appellee and cross-appellant Canton Professional Educators' Association.
This case requires our interpretation of R.C. 3307.35. That provision, which governs the establishment of early retirement plans under the State Teachers Retirement System, reads in relevant portion as follows:
"An employer may establish a retirement incentive plan for its employees who are members of the state teachers retirement system. The plan shall provide for purchase by the employer of service credit for eligible employees who choose to participate in the plan and for payment by the employer of the entire cost of such service credit. A plan established under this section shall remain in effect until terminated by the employer, except that, once established, the plan must remain in effect for at least one year."
At issue in the case at bar is the meaning of the clause "the plan must remain in effect for at least one year." Appellant asserts that the clause requires a plan established under R.C. 3307.35 to be open for application for an entire year, arguing that the Board's application period fell impermissibly short of the one-year time frame. Appellees contend that the clause in question is not directed to the application period during which prospective retirees may submit the proper forms to initiate early retirement, but rather to the period from which the retiree, once qualified for early retirement, may select a starting date for his retirement.
In interpreting the meaning of a phrase within a statute, this court is bound by legislative direction to presume that the entire statute is intended to be effective. R.C. 1.47(B). We also must presume that the statute is intended to provide a just and reasonable result that is feasible of execution. R.C. 1.47(C) and (D). The interpretation we adopt must adhere to those abiding and basic principles of statutory construction.
Our reading of the statute indicates that an application deadline short of the minimum one-year period during which the plan had to be in effect is consistent with the legislature's intent in permitting the establishment of retirement incentive plans for educators. As a part of the statutory framework for such early retirement programs, the legislature provided in R.C. 3307.35 that an employer could limit, on the basis of seniority, the number of its employees who would be permitted to retire early. In order to implement that provision of the statute, it is clear that some cutoff date would of necessity be permitted. Absent such a deadline, a plan with a cap on participation could result in a system in which the quota would be filled by those who were first in line with a completed application, without the critical consideration of seniority.
In order to give full effect to the entire statute, and in particular to the provision protecting the seniority rights of workers with respect to their eligibility for early retirement, we are compelled to agree with the interpretation urged by appellees and adopted by the courts below. Accordingly, we hold that the requirement in R.C. 3307.35 that a retirement incentive plan "remain in effect for at least one year" does not preclude the establishment of an application period for such a plan that expires less than a year after the plan is adopted.
Appellant's proposition of law must be overruled. In view of our decision, we find it unnecessary to address CPEA's cross-appeal. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, DOUGLAS, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.