Opinion ID: 1360090
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Substantial Injury

Text: The majority acknowledges the existence of numerous affidavits detailing the potential hardships to be suffered by state employees and by programs designed to serve state employees' interests ( e.g., retirement funds and pension funds). Majority opinion, at 891. The majority admits there is no remedy at law that would restore the affected state employees to the status quo ante if their homes or cars are repossessed, or if their health insurance and retirement systems are depleted or canceled. Majority opinion, at 891. These contentions are rejected, however, because the majority is not satisfied that any specific state employee has asserted such potential injury. Apparently, the majority feels it should not act until there is actual proof that disaster has struck. Unfortunately, as admitted by the majority, there then would be no remedy at law that [c]ould restore the affected state employees to the status quo ante ... Majority opinion, at 891. This makes no sense to me, particularly when only a very short delay in implementation of the lagged payroll plan was requested to permit a hearing on the merits. Additionally, the majority contends it is unable to take judicial notice of the potential hardships. I would suggest the affidavits plus the use of a pencil and some paper would have revealed the hardships most graphically. For example, it takes little imagination to determine that as a result of the lagged payroll plan the state employees would be paid in 1982 for 11 and not 12 months of work. The use of pencil and paper would also have disclosed that the Internal Revenue Service withholding for 1982 would thus be considerably less. This alone would create quite an impact on employees who relied on a specific estimated amount for paying their annual income tax. In addition, by making the December payment in January 1983, the employees' salary would be subject to an OASI (FICA) installment that would not have been imposed had the salary been paid in December 1982. This is no small matter to many employees who were relying on a full December paycheck. It does the employee little good to say it will all come out in the wash some time in the next few years. Again, the simple use of pencil and paper would have disclosed that employees considering retirement will be severely affected by adoption of the lagged payroll system. The base for retirement is the employee's highest average final compensation received over 24 consecutive months. See RCW 41.40.010(15)(a). This is usually the last 2 years of employment because normally payment in these months would be the highest. Under the lagged payroll system, however, employees will be paid for only 11 months in 1982; therefore, anyone seeking retirement in the next 2 years will be credited for only 23 months in the 24-month period. Simple arithmetic reveals a serious impact on potential retirees. This is also disclosed in affidavit form. Turning from the impact the lagged payroll system would have on IRS withholding, OASI withholding and retirement, it is again clear that much can be learned by the simple use of pencil and paper. There is no need to turn to technical rules of judicial notice and affidavits. It is obvious that in the real world banks, credit unions, stores with charge accounts and creditors who issue credit cards ( e.g., VISA, Master Charge, American Express, Diner's Club and gasoline companies to name a few) all assess a fee for late payment. While it would require affidavits to determine the actual percentage points used by the various companies, it is clearly common knowledge that the system is operative and that it applies to any person who makes a late payment. It is unrealistic to conclude that a 10-day delay in payments will not cause many employees to incur such late charges. In fact, the State concedes that the lagged payroll system will require alignment of personal budgeting and spending patterns to accommodate payments normally made on the first of the month ... Clerk's Papers, at 95. Finally, the lagged payroll system, as applied to salaries paid prior to January 1, 1983, raises a problem of constitutional dimensions albeit affecting only a small number of the total state personnel. Const. art. 3, § 25 and Const. art. 28, § 1 as amended by Const. art. 30, § 1 provide that compensation for state officers must not be diminished during their terms of office. During 1982 the state officers were paid 11 months' compensation for 12 months' work. This is reflected in their IRS W-2 forms, their OASI withholding and their IRS withholding. Surely the majority could have considered this either by way of judicial notice or simple common knowledge. Based on all of the foregoing it is clear petitioner WFSE established substantial harm in its request for a preliminary injunction pending a full hearing by the trial court on the merits. After applying the criteria of Tyler Pipe to the facts established both by affidavit and common knowledge, I can only conclude WFSE has established the prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief. In light of the record before the trial court, I am compelled to find an abuse of discretion by the trial court in failing to grant the preliminary injunction. The majority compounded the problem by improperly admitting evidence ex post facto to justify the trial court's erroneous decision. I would reverse the trial court and remand with instruction to enter a preliminary injunction pursuant to RCW 7.40.020. ROSELLINI, J., concurs with STAFFORD, J. DORE, J. (dissenting)