CC PACKET 09131994 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DORSEY & WHIT- EY Mr. Michael Morrison August 1, 1994 Page 2 The statute in my opinion is not clear on whether you can deduct the military pay from the amount he is paid (or pay him the full City pay and turn the military pay over to the-City, as provided for union employees). In one sense, he would not be "losing" any pay. On the other hand, he could argue that what he receives from the military is none of the City's business. We find no cases interpreting the statute on this issue, but there are two old opinions of the Attorney General interpreting the statute in favor of the employee. Op. Atty. Gen., 310- H-1-a, Aug. 17, 1951 and Op. Atty. Gen.,310-H-1-a, May 23, 1961. Although these opinions do not have the force of law, in my opinion a court would very likely come to the same conclusion. The case Joel jamnik sent to you does not deal with this issue, but I think it is an indication of how liberally the courts will construe the statute. 2. You've also asked whether we should amend the ordinance. If the Council agrees we should interpret the statute as described above, we • should amend the ordinance. 3. The State law and the City ordinance would also apply to collective bargaining units. This is clear from the case of Howe v. City of St. Cloud, 515 N.W.2d 77 (Minn. App., 1994). The union contract would be contrary to the State law if the City requires the employee to reimburse the employer for the full compensation from the military. If the Council agrees with the above interpretation, the union employees should not be required to turn over their military pay to the City, and this should be changed in future contracts. If you or the Councilmembers have any further questions, please let me know. V y yo Gam. o William R. Soth WRS:gIe