Berry v. State Forestry Department

582 P.2d 473, 35 Or. App. 703, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2880
CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon
DecidedAugust 8, 1978
DocketERB No. 583, CA 10083
StatusPublished

This text of 582 P.2d 473 (Berry v. State Forestry Department) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Berry v. State Forestry Department, 582 P.2d 473, 35 Or. App. 703, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2880 (Or. Ct. App. 1978).

Opinion

JOSEPH, J.

Petitioners filed a petition with the Employment Relations Board under ORS 240.086(2) seeking to overturn a denial of salary increases. The petition was denied and they seek judicial review.

Petitioners are classified employees in the State Forestry Department. Prior to May 1, 1976, each was employed as a Forest Technician 1. As a result of a restructuring-reclassification effective May 1, 1976, the classification Forest Technician 1 was eliminated, and they were reclassified Forest Technicians, a new classification. The salary range for the new classification was higher than for the eliminated classification. The restructuring was requested by the Forestry Department and approved by the Personnel Division of the Executive Department. See ORS 240.220, 240.235(3) and 291.258.1 The Emergency Board and the Governor approved the action, as required by statute. ORS 291.371 (Emergency Board);2 240.220(2), 240.235(2) (Governor).

[706]*706In submitting the reclassification plan to the Emergency Board, the Personnel Division requested only those salary increases which were necessary to bring all reclassified employees up to the minimum rate for the new classification. Petitioners, who were already at or above the minimum, received no increase. The reclassification proposal was submitted without salary increases for those already at or above the minimum because of a prior understanding reached by the Emergency Board and the Personnel Division that reclassifications resulting from restructuring would be submitted without salary increases other than required to bring affected employees to the minimum rate and that the Emergency Board would not approve reclassifications with other increases.

Personnel Division Rule 32-330 provides:

"When an employe is noncompetively advanced because of reclassification of his position he may be given an immediate increase to the next higher rate in the new salary range. * * *”

Petitioners contend that Rule 32-330 grants to the appointing authority (the Forestry Department) discretion immediately to increase the salary of every employee whose position is reclassified whenever the new classification has a higher salary range than the old. They argue that the Forestry Department properly exercised that discretion in promulgating Directive 5-1-3-410, which provides:

"An employe who is noncompetitively promoted through reclassification upward to a new classification [707]*707with a higher salary range shall receive an immediate salary increase. * * *”

Under that directive and Personnel Division Rule 32-330, petitioners assert, they were entitled to salary increases upon reclassification regardless of whether there were funds in the Forestry Department budget which could properly be used to cover the increases. They argue that the Personnel Division was required as part of the reclassification proposal to submit to the Emergency Board a request for salary increases for all employees reclassified from Forest Technician 1 to Forest Technician, even though the Board had indicated that it would not approve a proposal including such increases.

The Employment Relations Board ruled that Personnel Division Rule 32-330 did not grant to the Forestry Department the authority to promulgate a rule such as Directive 5-1-3-410 and that the Personnel Division was not bound by that directive to seek salary increases for petitioners. We agree with the latter conclusion, and it is dispositive of the case.

The authority of the Forestry Department to grant immediate raises to those placed by the Personnel Division in a new classification with a higher salary range when there are funds in the Forestry Department budget which can properly be used to cover such increases is not in issue here. There is no requirement that such increases be approved by the Emergency Board (sccORS 291.3263 and 291.371, supra, n2), and [708]*708there would be no reason for petitioners to insist that such increases be submitted for Emergency Board approval. Although the record does not tell us the state of the Forestry Department budget, we assume that the increases sought required some budget adjustment by the Emergency Board. The issue is whether the Forestry Department can promulgate a directive binding the Personnel Division to include within a restructuring-reclassification proposal a request for salary increases for all employees placed into a classification with a higher salary range.

Under ORS 240.215 and 240.2354 the Personnel Division has the authority and responsibility to establish and maintain classification and compensation plans for the classified service. Under ORS 240.220, 240.235(3) and 291.258 the Personnel Division also has the responsibility for the modification of those [709]*709plans. Insofar as Forestry Department Directive 5-1-3-410 purports to require the Personnel Division, as a condition of any reclassification of the type involved here, to seek from the Emergency Board salary increases for all employees placed into a classification with a higher salary range, it conflicts with the Personnel Division’s statutory responsibility and is beyond the department’s authority. The Personnel Division would have been entitled to disregard the directive even if the Emergency Board had not previously indicated it would deny any proposal including such increases.5

Petitioners attempt to raise an additional argument concerning the constitutionality of ORS 291.371, but that issue is not property presented on this record.6

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

§ 240.086
Oregon § 240.086
§ 240.220
Oregon § 240.220
§ 291.371
Oregon § 291.371
§ 291.326
Oregon § 291.326
§ 240.215
Oregon § 240.215
§ 240.235
Oregon § 240.235
§ 291.258
Oregon § 291.258

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
582 P.2d 473, 35 Or. App. 703, 1978 Ore. App. LEXIS 2880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berry-v-state-forestry-department-orctapp-1978.