Request By:
James B. Stewart, Esq.
White, McCann & Stewart
Attorneys at Law
Codell Building
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Martin Glazer, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
You seek an opinion of this office concerning the eligibility of an individual as a ranger with the Department of Parks. You state that between January and March of this year, he had been employed by the L & N Railroad Company as a security supervisor guarding bridges in Clark County. First of all, you want to know whether this would prohibit his serving as a ranger considering KRS 61.300(1)(d). That statute provides in part:
"(1) No person shall serve as a deputy sheriff, deputy constable, patrol or other nonelective peace officer or deputy peace officer, unless:
* * *
(d) He has not within a period of two
(2) years hired himself out, performed any service, or received any compensation from any private source for acting, as a privately paid detective, policeman, guard, peace officer or otherwise as an active participant in any labor dispute, or conducted the business of a private detective agency or of any agency supplying private detectives, private policemen or private guards, or advertised or solicited any such business in connection with any labor dispute. "
You state that this section has two possible interpretations: (1) That the officer cannot have previously served as a private security guard, or (2) that he may not serve as a private security guard if he had been involved in a labor dispute.
We enclose a copy of OAG 77-344 which touches on this issue. It is the opinion of this office that the prohibition is not a prohibition against serving as a private security guard or policeman, per se, but it is a prohibition against serving as such while an active participant in any labor dispute. As you pointed out, any other interpretation would appear inconsistent when we consider that KRS 61.310(4) permits a peace officer while off duty to act in private employment as a guard if he does not participate in a labor dispute during those private employment hours.
You further state that this particular employee was employed during the time labor disputes were in progress in those counties where coal mining operations were conducted; however, the activity of the individual involved was confined solely to where the coal is not mined and not where the strikes were held and his employer was not involved, per se, in such strikes.
Based upon the facts as given, it appears that this particular employee was not involved in a labor dispute. Of course, whether a particular person was involved in a labor dispute or not is a question of fact on a per case basis. But, assuming that the facts cited by you are the only ones, it appears that the individual was not involved in a labor dispute.