Laserfiche WebLink
<br />to pay. Measured against the "fair play" doctrine, it is obvious <br />~~ <br />that there can be no other answer, but that the increase should <br />~. be made effective as of September 1, 1971. <br />• We have used the word "retroactive" throughout the opinion, <br />first because that was the caption of the letter requesting this. <br />opinion, and secondly it has been generally spoken of in that <br />regard. It is our opinion, however, that the word "retroactive" <br />. ~ used in the context of circumstances under discussion, is a misnomer <br />for the reason that September 1st is the date that has been employed <br />for many years for wage increases, and payments to the employees <br />would have been made on this date were it not for the intervention <br />.~~ of the executive order. Hence, payments that would now be made <br />by the City to its employees would not be retroactive, but merely <br />in performance of its preexisting contractural obligation. A <br />fairly substantial benefit which the City has acquired by reason <br />of the executive order fs the interest it has earned on the unpaid <br />monies, which is now almost six months. <br />/~ .' <br />CONCLUSION <br />~ . <br />For the reasons above stated we respectively suggest that there <br />.are in fact no retroactive pay increase to make; that the City <br />contracted with the employees to pay certain increases effective as <br />of September 1st 1971, and that the City received a windfall for <br />a period of time by reason of the executive order, and that by <br />. reason of the constitutional law of the United States, the opinion <br />of the IRS, and by reasonable standards of fair play, the back pay <br />withheld must now be distributed as soon as it is reasonably and <br />~ conveniently possible <br />•. <br />/'` <br />3 <br />