4 NICS App. 107, RAMOS v. TULALIP TRIBE (September 1996)

IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS

    TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION

    MARYSVILLE, WASHINGTON

    Ginny Ramos, Appellant

    v.

    The Tulalip Tribe, Respondent

    No. TUL-EMP-7/96-559 (September 4, 1996)

SUMMARY

Trial court denied Appellant’s appeal to the Employment Court for lack of timely filing. In its calculation of the filing deadline, the trial court counted as a “work day” a day during which all tribal offices had been closed for Administrative Leave. Finding that an Administrative Leave day does not constitute a “work day”, we reverse and remand.

FULL TEXT

Before:            Elbridge Coochise, Chief Justice; Rose E. Purser, Justice; Jay V. White, Justice.

This matter came before the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals on August 14, 1996, without Oral Arguments pursuant to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal filed on July 24, 1996. Appellant appeals the July 17, 1996 Order of the Employment Court that denied a hearing because her “appeal [was] not timely filed.”

JURISDICTION

This Court has personal jurisdiction over Appellant because she is a member of the Tulalip Tribes. The act which is the subject of this appeal and the employment of the Appellant is within the exterior boundaries of the Tulalip Indian Reservation, giving rise to this Court’s territorial jurisdiction. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to the Tulalip Human Resources Ordinance No. 84, as amended by Tulalip Resolution No. 96-0020, 1995 (hereinafter “HRO No. 84")

ISSUE

The issue before the Court of Appeals is whether the Employment Court erred in denying the Appellant’s appeal, based on its finding that July 2, 1996, a day that all Tribal offices were closed, was not a holiday.

4 NICS App. 107, RAMOS v. TULALIP TRIBE (September 1996) p. 108

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On June 21, 1996, the Tulalip Contract Health Services notified Appellant that she was suspended for five (5) days. On July 9, 1996, Appellant appealed her five (5) day suspension to the Tulalip Tribal Employment Court. On July 10, 1996, the Employment Court denied Appellant’s appeal stating that it was not filed timely pursuant to HRO 84, Chapter X.B.4, which provides:

Appeals must be submitted to the employment Court using the appeals notice form within ten (10) working days of receipt of written notice of warning, suspension, or dismissal.

On July 12, 1996, the Appellant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the July 10, 1996 Denial Order. The Appellant argued that her Notice of Appeal to the Employment Court had been filed timely because it was filed “within ten (10) working days” from her Notice of Suspension. Appellant states that the Tribal Offices were closed for business on July 2, 1996, due to observance of the death of the tribe’s eldest member, and July 4, 1996, in observance of Independence Day Holiday. On July 17, 1996, the Employment Court denied her Motion for Reconsideration, stating that “July 2, 1996 is not considered a holiday” for the Tulalip Tribes.

On July 24, 1996, the Appellant filed an appeal in the Tulalip Tribal Court of Appeals. This Court accepted the appeal on August 1, 1996, and issued an Order stating that this matter would be decided on the record without oral arguments and that the parties should submit any briefs by Monday, August 12, 1996. Both Appellant and Respondent filed their briefs timely. The Appellate Court considered this appeal on the record on August 14, 1996.

DISCUSSION

HRO 84, Chapter X governs procedure for discipline, grievances, and appeals and provides:

Appeals must be submitted to the Employment court using the appeals notice form within ten (10) working days of receipt of written notice of warning suspension or dismissal.

HRO 84, § X.B.4.    

The Appellant argues that July 2, 1996, and July 4, 1996 should not be considered for purposes of determining whether her appeal was timely filed. Respondent argues that Appellant failed to comply with the strict requirement of HRO 84, § X.B. that she file her appeal “within ten (10) working days” from receipt of her notice of suspension. Respondent argues that Ms. Ramos received notice of her suspension on June 21, 1996 and that she should have filed her appeal by July 5, 1996.

The parties do not dispute that all Tribal Offices were closed on July 4, 1996, in observance

4 NICS App. 107, RAMOS v. TULALIP TRIBE (September 1996) p. 109

of Independence Day Holiday, and that the Tribal Offices resumed a “normal business day” on Friday, July 5, 1996. Appellant received her Notice of Suspension on Friday, June 21, 1996. Appellant’s ten (10) day time limit began to run Monday, June 24, 1996. See Tulalip Rules of Court, Rule 4.6.1.

The parties do not dispute that on July 1, 1996 Francis Sheldon, action C.E.O. for the Board of Directors, issued a memorandum to all tribal employees. The memorandum authorized the closure of government/administrative offices on July 2, 1996 for funeral services, and designated that day as Administrative Leave.

The Appellant argues that since HRO 84, § VII.E.1.b. authorizes the Board of Directors to “declare other days as administrative holidays with pay”, July 2, 1996 is not a “work day” and should not be included in the calculation to determine timeliness of her appeal (see HRO 84, § X.B.4.) This Court of Appeals agrees.

“Work day” by definition implies that a business will be open during business hours and shall have personnel present to assist individuals who have business to conduct. Any day during which a business is not open during business hours and does not have personnel present, therefore, is not a “work day”. On July 2, 1996, all tribal offices were closed during business hours and all personnel were not present to conduct business. Therefore, July 2, 1996 was not a “working day” for the Tribe.

CONCLUSION

The facts presented in this case are undisputed. The only dispute lies within the Employment Court’s calculation of the ten (10) day requirement under HRO 84, § X.B.4. The Employment Court determined that July 2, 1996 was not a “holiday”; therefore, it counted that day as part of the “ten (10) working days” in calculating the filing deadline. HRO 84, § X.B.4 explicitly refers to “working days” and not “holidays”. Furthermore, HRO 84 defines a normal work day as “eight (8) hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. . . .” HRO 84, § VI.A.1.

The Board of Directors designated July 2, 1996, as an Administrative Leave day and closed the Government and Administrative Offices. Therefore, July 2, 1996 was not a “normal work day.” Any individual having business with the Tulalip Tribes would be unable to conduct such business on that particular day. July 2, 1996 cannot be included in the calculation of the Appellant’s ten (10) day filing requirement. The ten- day time began on Monday, June 24, 1996, and the tenth “working day” falls on July 9, 1996; therefore, the Appellant satisfied the ten (10) day rule.

ORDER

It is hereby ordered that the Employment Court’s Order of July 17, 1996, denying the Appellant’s appeal is reversed.

4 NICS App. 107, RAMOS v. TULALIP TRIBE (September 1996) p. 110

It is further ordered that this matter is remanded to the Employment Court for full hearing on the merits.

Purser and White, JJ., concur.