Court Opinion

ID: 9853224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:44:41.524003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:43.046728
License: Public Domain

Rosellini, J.
(concurring) — It is of interest to note what has occurred since 1970, when the age of retirement was reduced from 70 to 65. King County ordinance No. 3337, approved on August 16, 1977, provides in part:
Retirement from county employment shall be in accord with the provisions set forth in RCW 41.40. For employees hired on or before September 30, 1977, retirement from regular county employment shall occur on the first of the month following the occurrence of the seventieth birthday. For employees hired after September 30, 1977, there shall be no mandatory retirement age.
Thus it will be seen that, whatever the reasons for reducing the mandatory retirement age in 1970, they were found invalid by 1977. Certainly there has been no showing that the 1970 change was designed to preserve or improve pension benefits.
It is necessary to understand the proper legal significance of the rights in a pension plan. In Bakenhus v. Seattle, 48 Wn.2d 695, 699-70, 296 P.2d 536 (1956), we quoted with approval the following language from Baker v. Retirement Bd., 374 Pa. 165, 97 A.2d 231 (1953):
*259"As of the time he joined the fund, his right to continued membership therein, under the same rules and regulations existing at the time of his employment, was complete and vested. The legislature could not thereafter constitutionally alter the provisions of his already existing contract of membership. His rights in the fund could only be changed by mutual consent: Marshall v. Pilots Assn., 206 Pa. 182, 55 A. 916."
Thus it is seen that a public employee has a vested right in the pension plan at the time the employee enters public service. This right cannot be defeated by changing the terms of the contract with respect to pension rights. Employee rights cannot be impaired.
This does not mean that the public employer cannot change a pension plan, but a new plan can apply only to employees who join public service after the plan has been adopted. But, under Bakenhus, even this cannot be done in a manner which undermines the financial integrity of the existing system.
Employees weigh the value of their expected pension when deciding where to work or whether to stay in certain employment. Accordingly, they are making an investment similar to the purchase of an annuity or an insurance contract.
I join with Justice Dolliver, where he states:
Beginning with Bakenhus, we have protected the pension rights of public employees from unwarranted administrative and legislative tampering. We continue this protection and refuse the invitation to confuse pension with tenure.
Hamilton, Stafford, Brachtenbach, and Hicks, JJ., concur with Rosellini, J.