Court Opinion

ID: 9686258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:36:28.416504+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:16.844976
License: Public Domain

STUART, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion.
“In arriving at the intention of the legislature, the subject matter, effect, consequence, and the reason and spirit of the statute must be considered, * * Dobrovolny v. Reinhardt (Iowa, 1970), 173 N.W.2d 837, 840.
“A statute should be given a sensible, practical, workable and logical construction and if fairly possible a construction resulting in unreasonableness as well as absurd consequences will be avoided.” Krueger v. Fulton (Iowa, 1969), 169 N.W. 2d 875, 877.
Under the majority opinion a person hired on probation a day before the ordinance became effective would achieve the full civil service rights of a regular employee by passing the examination. I do not believe the legislature intended this result when it specifically provided for probationary employment for employees hired under the ordinance.
I do not believe the act requires the interpretation given it by the majority. The appellant’s position at the time the ordinance became effective was as a probationary officer. If he “retains that position” he remains a probationary officer and does not become a regular officer. The “full civil service rights” to which he would be entitled would be those afforded a probationary officer under the ordinance and not those given a regular employee.
LARSON and LeGRAND, JJ., join in this dissent.