Washington State

Office of the Attorney General

Attorney General

Bob Ferguson

AGLO 1982 NO. 1 >

In order to receive reimbursement for unused sick leave, pursuant to RCW 28A.58.097, at the time of separation from school district employment due to retirement, an employee must have separated from such employment and have been granted a retirement allowance under the laws governing the Teachers' Retirement System or the Public Employees' Retirement System, whichever applies;  however, it is not necessary that the employee have actually filed for retirement prior to the date of his or her separation so long as the application is thereafter filed within a reasonable period of time and without the occurrence of any intervening covered employment.

AGO 2009 NO. 1 >

The Public Works Board lacks the statutory authority to hire, supervise, evaluate, transfer, and fire staff assigned to it by the Department of Community, Trade, and Economic Development.

AGLO 1980 NO. 3 >

(1) Employees of the Washington State Ferry System are subject to the jurisdiction of the State Employees Insurance Board under chapter 41.05 RCW with respect to the design of such employer-funded insurance coverage as they receive from the state. (2) The employer's contribution of the Washington Department of Transportation under RCW 41.05.050(2) is not, in the case of ferry system employees, limited to that which the State Employees Insurance Board sets as the employer's contribution for state agencies generally.

AGO 1973 NO. 3 >

A school district, as a condition of reemployment of its certificated teachers for a new school year, may require such teachers to sign and return their formal written employment contracts within a specified, reasonable period of time after the mailing of these contracts to the teachers.

AGO 1955 NO. 5 >

Blanket Bonds for non-elective county employees are not restricted by statute to annual basis.

AGO 1985 NO. 5 >

A federal Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training (BAT) apprentice program may not be substituted for a state‑approved apprenticeship program under chapter 49.04 RCW for the purposes of ascertainment of the prevailing wage on public works projects under RCW 39.12.021.

AGO 1983 NO. 5 >

Because of the necessity for a legally sufficient description in connection with an offer to sell, or sale of, real property an offer to sell a portion of a larger tract of land, or the execution of a purchase and sale agreement covering such a tract of land, constitutes a "division" of the land under the definition of a "short subdivision" contained in RCW 58.17.020(6) or (7) so as to render applicable the various provisions of chapter 58.17 RCW relating to short plats and short subdivisions.

AGO 1970 NO. 6 >

(1) When a state employee transfers from a classified civil service position which is subject to chapter 41.06 RCW to either a classified or an exempt position which is covered by chapter 28B.16 RCW, he is not entitled to receive payment for his accumulated annual leave under RCW 43.01.041; instead, his accumulated annual leave is to be transferred from his old employing agency to his new one as provided for in RCW 43.01.040.(2) A permanent status employee transferring from a position under chapter 41.06 RCW, to a classified position in an institution of higher learning under chapter 28B.16 RCW, is subject to such "probationary period" regulations as are promulgated by the higher education personnel board under RCW 28B.16.100.

AGO 1975 NO. 7 >

The board of trustees of a community college district may not legally include what is commonly referred to as an "agency shop" clause in a negotiated agreement entered into between such board and the faculty employees of the district under the provisions of chapter 28B.52 RCW for the reason that such a clause is prohibited by RCW 28B.52.070.

AGO 1981 NO. 8 >

RCW 43.63.040 [46.63.040] does not vest a municipal or police court with jurisdiction over a traffic infraction based on an alleged violation of state law‑-as distinguished from one involving a local, municipal ordinance; therefore, such a court does not have exclusive, or even concurrent, jurisdiction over a traffic infraction case which is so based, even in the absence of a contract with the county to have those traffic infractions committed within the city or town adjudicated by a district court.