Harden v. GeneralHarden v. General
Lead Opinion
{¶ 1} The matter for resolution on this appeal concerns whether
{¶ 2} Larry D. Harden, a special agent supervisor of the Major Crimes Unit in the Ohio Attorney General’s Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation (“BCI”), received a notice from the Attorney General informing him that because of his failure to exercise supervisory responsibilities over an agent under his control, he would be disciplined in accordance with
{¶ 3} “[Yjour vacation leave balance will be reduced by eight (8) hours. If your current vacation leave balance is insufficient, such reduction will take place as you accrue vacation leave. The hours will be deducted from your vacation leave balance from the pay period beginning April 25, 1999, until sufficient vacation leave has been deducted to equal a total of eight (8) hours as a result of this order.”
{¶ 4} Harden filed a notice of appeal with the State Personnel Board of Review (“SPBR”), and after a hearing, an administrative law judge issued a report and recommendation affirming the deduction of Harden’s vacation-leave balance. Harden objected to that report and appealed to the SPBR, questioning whether
{¶ 5} The cause is now before our court upon allowance of a discretionary appeal.
{¶ 6} In his proposition of law, Harden claims that a state employee’s vacation leave “becomes a vested right as it incrementally accrues pursuant to
{¶ 7} Initially, we address Harden’s claim that all vacation leave is necessarily vested, the issue he raised in his motion for reconsideration. He argues that “vacation leave simultaneously accrues and becomes a vested right of each full-time permanent state employee at specific incremental rates throughout the work year.” In support of this proposition, he cites the following portion of
{¶ 8} “(A) Each full-time permanent state employee * * *, after service of one year, shall have earned and will be due upon the attainment of the first year of employment, and annually thereafter, eighty hours of vacation leave with full pay. * * * A full-time permanent state employee with twenty-five or more years of service shall have earned and is entitled to two hundred forty hours of vacation leave "with full pay. Such vacation leave shall accrue to the employee at the rate of * * * nine and two-tenths hours each biweekly period for those entitled to two hundred forty hours per year.”
{¶ 9} Contrary to Harden’s belief, this language does not support his claim. As defined by Black’s Law Dictionary, “accrue” means “[t]o come into existence
{¶ 10} Having determined that prospective deduction of vacation leave does not affect the vested right of a state employee, we next consider whether deducting an employee’s vacation time constitutes a “reduction in pay” (emphasis added) authorized by
{¶ 11}
{¶ 12} Neither this statute nor
{¶ 14} The definitions of the terms “pay” and “reduction in pay” provided in the Ohio Administrative Code support our resolution of this issue.
{¶ 15} On the basis of the foregoing, we conclude that a public employer may discipline an employee in an
Judgment affirmed.
Notes
. {¶ a}
{¶ b} “The state personnel board of review shall exercise the following powers and perform the following duties:
{¶ c} “(A) Hear appeals, as provided by law, of employees in the classified state service from final decisions of appointing authorities or the director of administrative services relative to reduction in pay or position, job abolishments, layoff, suspension, discharge, assignment or reassignment to a new or different position classification * *
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
{¶ 16} Pursuant to
{¶ 17} Moreover, the legislature has specifically set forth the number of vacation hours that accrue to employees like Harden. Had they meant to allow those hours to be reduced by employers, they could have specifically set that forth in legislation. They did not.
{¶ 18} Since a reduction in vacation time is not an enumerated form of discipline under