Opinion ID: 2612288
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: retirement issue

Text: From 1975 to 1977 the Enumclaw School District contracted with one of its employees, W.R. Pickles, to grant him a leave of absence to serve as a full-time officer of the WEA. Mr. Pickles remained on the school district's payroll, receiving salary from the district for which the district was fully reimbursed by WEA. Reacting to the Auditor's concerns the school district in 1977 refused to continue Mr. Pickles' paid leave and placed him on unpaid leave. In 1979, Mr. Pickles resigned his teaching position to accept employment with WEA. Beginning in 1975 the Northshore School District provided, through contract, similar paid leave arrangements for one of its certificated employees, WEA president Carol Jean Coe. Northshore paid Ms. Coe's salary fixed in an amount equal to the salary which the WEA had established for her services as a WEA officer. The amount of this salary and fringe benefits has been reimbursed to the school district by WEA. In addition, the contract provided that the periods of Ms. Coe's leave would be counted for tenure and seniority purposes and for her participation in the Washington State Teachers' Retirement System. Since 1978, the WEA has also reimbursed the State for the amount of the State's contribution to the retirement system, with respect to Ms. Coe's membership in that system. The Auditor challenges the validity of Ms. Coe's contract. The Auditor contends that Ms. Coe's employment by the school district for the years during which she was under the special contractual relationship should not be counted as creditable service years for purposes of computing her entitlement to benefits under the teachers' retirement system. The trial court declined to rule on this matter as not being the proper time or proper occasion to determine the question. We likewise decline to rule at this time. [8] It is well established that in order for the courts to entertain a declaratory judgment action there must be  an actual as distinguished from a possible or potential dispute ... (Italics ours.) Washington Beauty College, at 164-65. See also State ex rel. O'Connell v. Dubuque, 68 Wn.2d 553, 413 P.2d 972 (1966); Kitsap Cy. v. Bremerton, 46 Wn.2d 362, 369, 281 P.2d 841 (1955); Kahin v. Lewis, 42 Wn.2d 897, 901, 259 P.2d 420 (1953). The dispute regarding Ms. Coe's retirement eligibility is at best speculative. This is in fact conceded by the Auditor. [3] It is apparent that this case involves a possible or potential dispute and the court will not entertain such a dispute in a declaratory judgment action. The Auditor argues that courts decide other questions affecting the retirement eligibility of individuals, e.g., hiring and firing. The effect those decisions have on retirement eligibility, however, is merely tangential. In this case the retirement eligibility of the individual is the primary issue and is presently too speculative for a decision. To recapitulate, we affirm the trial court's assuming jurisdiction and determining that release time provisions in the collective bargaining agreements are valid under the applicable statute and under the facts of this case do not constitute unfair labor practices. WILLIAMS, C.J., STAFFORD, DOLLIVER, DORE, and PEARSON, JJ., and CUNNINGHAM, J. Pro Tem., concur. UTTER, J. (concurring in part, dissenting in part) I concur in the result reached by the majority but dissent from its analysis. I believe the majority construes RCW 43.09.260, upon which it predicates the Auditor's standing, far too broadly. I would construe that provision more narrowly, limiting it to actions more closely related to the general duties of the Auditor, and conclude he has no standing here. Nonetheless, I agree that we should reach the labor law issue as it is one of substantial public interest.