State ex rel Val Hoyle v. City of Grants Pass

"ORS 652.060(1) provides fire departments with a ‘safe harbor,’ under which an employer is 'deemed to have complied with [ORS 652.060(1)] and ORS 652.070 if the hours of regular duty required of firefighters employed by it an average not more than [72 or 56] hours a week over each quarter of the fiscal year.'” (Emphasis added). Additionally, "ORS 652.070(1) requires employers to 'put into effect and maintain a schedule of working hours' that complies with ORS 652.060 . . . [i]f an employer fails to do so, it must pay overtime 'to every regularly employed firefighter as additional pay for every hour of regular duty required of and performed by the firefighter over and above the average hours established by ORS 652.060."

The Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) appealed from the trial court's decision to dismiss BOLI's complaint in its entirety. BOLI assigned error to the trial court’s interpretation of two statutes, ORS 652.060 and ORS 652.070. On appeal, BOLI argued the legislative intent of ORS 652.060 and ORS. 652.070; BOLI argued (1) the interchange of “firefighter” and “firefighters” is unrealistic as a basis for discerning the legislative intent and (2) the surrounding text to the safe harbor clause of ORS 652.060(1) is focused on individual firefighters and this, in turn, means that the statues should be interpreted the same. In response, the City of Grants Pass (City) argued that the legislative intent when using “firefighters,” pursuant to ORS 65.060(1)(b), meant the average work hours for firefighters were to be calculated by the fire department as a whole rather than by each individual firefighter within the department. "ORS 652.060(1) provides fire departments with a ‘safe harbor,’ under which an employer is 'deemed to have complied with [ORS 652.060(1)] and ORS 652.070 if the hours of regular duty required of firefighters employed by it an average not more than [72 or 56] hours a week over each quarter of the fiscal year.'” (Emphasis added). Additionally, "ORS 652.070(1) requires employers to 'put into effect and maintain a schedule of working hours' that complies with ORS 652.060 . . . [i]f an employer fails to do so, it must pay overtime 'to every regularly employed firefighter as additional pay for every hour of regular duty required of and performed by the firefighter over and above the average hours established by ORS 652.060." The Court concluded, after looking at the practical context under which these statutes were enacted, that the legislature, with its familiarity of the work and culture of firefighting, most likely enacted these statutes with the intent of the plural, “firefighters.” Therefore, because the fire department had developed a schedule consistent with ORS 652.060 and ORS 652.070, no overtime pay was due.

Affirmed.