Opinion ID: 1698641
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Forfeiture of Accumulated Annual Leave

Text: Commission Rule VIII, § 1.2 [4] provides that accumulated annual leave shall be carried forward to the succeeding year, but sets a limit on the number of leave days that may be carried forward. The Firefighters contend that this limitation on the accumulation of annual leave days violates La.Rev.Stat. 33:1996, which not only provides for entitlement to a specified number of annual vacation days, but also mandates that vacation privileges shall not be forfeited for any cause. The Firefighters argue that this statute permits firemen to accumulate an unlimited number of days of annual leave which may not be forfeited. On the other hand, the City contends that La.Rev.Stat. 33:1996 does not address the accumulation of annual leave, but merely awards firemen a minimum number of days of annual leave. La. Rev. Stat 33:1996 requires that firemen covered by the Act be given annual vacation days with full pay, up to a specified maximum number of days, and prohibits the forfeiture of vacation privileges ... for any cause. The term vacation privileges, referring to the statutory guarantee which cannot be forfeited, means that a fireman cannot be denied the right to earn and to use the statutory amount of vacation days earned each year. Moreover, a fireman who is separated from employment in a given year must be paid for the vacation benefits he or she has earned as compensation for services already rendered, even if the fireman was discharged for the most serious cause imaginable. See Beard v. Summit Institute, 97-1784 (La.3/4/98), 707 So.2d 1233 (an employer cannot require an employee to forfeit earned wages simply by enacting a policy to that effect). Commission Rule VIII, § 1.2 does not violate the terms or the intent of the statute. The statutory guarantee is that firemen be allowed to earn and to use a minimum number of vacation days each year. The Rule, while allowing earned vacation days to be carried forward to a succeeding year, simply places a reasonable limitation on the period of time within which earned vacation days must be used. [5] The Rule thus denies a fireman the right to earn vacation days in one year at one salary and then to demand payment for those vacation days fifteen years later at a higher salary, but the Rule does not require forfeiture of earned vacation days which the fireman has been given a reasonable opportunity to use. A ceiling on the number of vacation days a fireman may carry forward is not, in itself, a forfeiture of earned vacation days, unless the fireman was denied the opportunity to use those earned vacation days. Moreover, the Rule does not violate this court's 1982 decision in New Orleans Firefighters, supra, which held that enforcement of the statute providing for supplemental salary for firemen in combination with their minimum wages did not conflict with the Civil Service Commission's constitutional rulemaking authority. Nor does the Rule create a labor condition for firemen that is injurious to the safety and welfare of the public as well as detriment to the health, efficiency and morale of the firefighters, which was a significant concern of the 1982 decision. Id. at 412. Indeed, the stockpiling of vacation days not only is a right on which the terms of the statute are silent, but also runs counter to the rest, renewal and recreation purpose of vacation days as an employment practice. We conclude that La.Rev.Stat. 33:1996 does not either grant or deny firemen the right to carry forward earned vacation days to future years. The statute simply is silent on the issue and therefore is not in conflict, on its face, with Commission Rule VIII, § 1.2. Nevertheless, the City arguably cannot require work conditions or undermanned schedules for firemen that prevent them from using their accrued leave each year, as such conduct by the City could constitute an impermissible forfeiture of vacation privileges. Since the matter is presently before us on a summary judgment that we are reversing in part, this issue can be addressed at the trial on the merits.