Opinion ID: 835784
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whitty Petitioners

Text: Whitty petitioners are each employees of SAIF, and they named PERB and SAIF as respondents to their petition for review. Whitty petitioners' opening brief asserts, in part: In addition to the [a]rguments stated by the Strunk Petitioners, the Whitty petition[ers] are relying upon the Respondent SAIF Corporation's written policy concerning retirement, stated in the SAIF Employee Handbook, as part of their contract with their employer.    The SAIF policy also refers the employee to the PERS Handbook, `for complete details of the retirement program.'         The language used by SAIF Corporation in its retirement policy statement, words such as `established,' `secure' and `guarantees,' is language of contract.    In response, respondents argue that (1) the PERS statutes do not reflect a legislative intent to delegate either to PERB or to SAIF the power to bind future legislatures; (2) even if the legislature had purported to delegate that power, the delegation would be an unconstitutional abdication of the legislature's lawmaking authority; (3) even if such a delegation were permissible, there is no evidence that the legislature intended to delegate such authority to PERB staff or SAIF, as opposed to PERB; and (4) at least insofar as the SAIF employee manual is concerned, it promises nothing more than the ability of its employees to participate in PERS like all other state employees. In reply, Whitty petitioners argue, in part, as follows: Respondents argue that the SAIF policy on retirement and the PERS Handbook are not part of Petitioners' contract because the language of the PERS statutes does not reflect an intent to delegate the power to bind future legislatures to an administrative agency. The language of the PERS statutes also does not delegate to SAIF Corporation, or any other governmental agency the power to enter into any contract with its employees. Yet, this court has held that a Multnomah County Ordinance is a sufficient basis for a retirement benefit contract. Taylor v. Multn[.]    Dept[.] Sher[.] Ret[.] B[d.], 265 Or. 445, 451, 510 P.2d 339 (1973).    If a county can contract with its employees through enactment of an ordinance establishing a retirement benefit, certainly an independent public corporation, SAIF, can contract with employees through adoption of a policy conferring retirement benefits.         As to whether the PERS Handbook is a part of Petitioners' contract with SAIF, the SAIF policy on retirement incorporates the benefits conferred in that Handbook by reference.    It did not adopt the Handbook as a `legal reference.' [27]