Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

“rmiTE ~TTOMNICY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUTC1TIN 11. TEXAS PRICE DANIEL ATTORNEYGENERAL November 21, 1949 Hon. Perry L. Jones Opinion No. V-950. County Attorney Travis County Rex The eligibilityof elected Austin, Texas county officials and public school teachers for cover- age under workmen's compen- Dear Sir: sation for county employees. We refer to your letter which In substance reads as follows: "Does H.B. No. 611, Acts 5lst Legisla- ture, 1949, (Article83Ogc, V.C.S.) involving workmen's compensationfor county employees, cover elected officials of the county? "Section 2, subsection2 of this bill provides '"Employee"shall mean every person in the service of the county who has been ap- t;?;;; in acc:rdancewith the provisions of . . This appears to me to ellm- lnate thi elected officials,however, the question has been raised that an elected of- ficials might resign or die, in which case the person succeedinghim would be 'appoint- ed in accordancewith the provisions of the law.' "Second question: Does this Section apply to school teachers in the county? "In my opinion school teachers are em- ployees of the local school districts, or possibly of the State and not of the county." Article III, Section 60, Constitutionof Texas, (H.J.R. 30, Acts 50th Leg., 1947) reads in part: "The Legislature shall have the power to pass such laws as may be necessary to enable all counties of this State to provide Work- men's CompensationInsurance, . . . for all . Hon. Perry L. Jones, page 2 (V-950) county employees as inWits judgment is neces- sary or required . . . Pursuant to this amendment,House Bill 611 (Art. 83Ogc), enabling counties to provide work.ments compensationinsurance for "county employees"was en- acted. One of the primary rules of statutory con- struction is that words in common use, when contained in a statute or Constitution,will be read according to their natural, ordinary and popular meaning, unless a contrary intention is clearly apparent from the con- text. 59 Tex. Jur. 197, Statutes, Sec. 105. This rule Is sanctionedIn Article 10, Vernon's CXvil Stat- utes. Furthermore,constitutionalprovisionsmay be read into a statute to remove uncertaintiesand In or- der to restrict literalism to proper bounds. 39 Tex. Jur. 157, Stat., Sec. 86. So the operation of language employed by the Legislaturein an enactmentmay be re- strained, though literally It may be susceptibleof a broader meaning which would conflict with the Constltu- Mon. In Webster's New InternationalDQtionary (SecondEdition), "employee"is defined as One employ- ed by another, one who works for wages or salary in the service of an employer;--disting.from official or of- ficer." In the common language and thinking of the people of this State in 1947 when they adopted Article III, Section 50, the words 'countyemployees"did not mean county officials,elective or appointive. Nor does the context of the constitutionalprovision au- thorize the attachment to those words of a meaning different or foreign to that usually and commonly ap;; plied thereto. We think the words county employees as used in the amendmentwhen given their common, or- dinary and popular meaning cannot reasonablybe con- strued to cover or Include county elective or appolnt- ive officials. The purpose of the amendment being to author- ize enactment of workmen's compensationlaws for county employees as dlstlngulshedfrom county officials,it follows that the provisions in Article 83Ogc, including Section 2, subsection2, defining 'employee",should be 1 . Hon. Perry L. Jones, page 3 (V-950) construed in harmony and not at variance with the consti- tutional law on the subject. It is our opinion that Ar- ticle 83Ogc (H.B. 611) does not cover county officers, elective or appointive. That a school district 1s a political subdivi- sion of the State 1s well established. Love v. City of Dallas, 120 Tex. 351 40 S.W.2d 20 (19317; Hatcher v. State, 125 Tex. 84, 41 S.W.2d 499 (1935); Lewis v. I.S.D. mty of Austin, 139 Tex. 83, 161 S.V.2d 450 (1942). bnder Texas 1aws, public school district teachers con- tract their employmentswith the board of trustees of the school district in which they teach. Their salaries are paid from school funds and not county funds. Art. Senate Bills 116, 117, Acts 51st Leg., It is our opinion that neither the constitutloaal amen&ent as herein consideredand construed,nor Arti- cle 83ogc, were contemplatedto cover school teachers in the county. Teachers, not being county employees in any sease of the words, are not covered by H.B. 611. SUMMARY House Bill No. 611, Acts 1st Legisla- turt$ 1949 (Art. 8304c, V.C.S. applicable to County employees does not cover county officials,elective or appointlve, or school district teachers in the county. Yours very truly, ATTORNEY GERXUL OF TEXAS Chester E. Ollisoa CEo:mv:bh Assistant APPROVED 9Pe @= FIRST ASSISTAIFX’ ATTORNEY OENERAL