Selon v. Bd. of Personnel Appeals

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: October 14, 1981
• Docket: 81-146
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-146 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981

IN THE MATTER OF THE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL OF T.ED J. SELON, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Petitioner and Appellant,

BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS et al., Respondents and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J. Michael Young and John Bobinski, De~artmentof Administration, Helena, Montana For Respondents:

Barry Hjort, Helena, Montana James Gardner, Bd. Personnel Appeals, Helena, Montana

Submitted on briefs: July 2 4 , 1981 Decided : i4 Filed:

. Clerk M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of the Court.

The S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (DOA) b r o u g h t a n

a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L e w i s and C l a r k County s e e k i n g

j u d i c i a l r e v i e w u n d e r t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t

(IJIAPA) o f a f i n a l o r d e r o f t h e S t a t e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s

(BPA) e n t e r e d i n a wage and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a p p e a l f i l e d by Ted J .

Selon. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d DOA' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l

review f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . DOA a p p e a l s .

Ted J. S e l o n was employed by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Highways as

a g e n e r a l o f f ice c l e r k ; and i n 1 9 7 6 , b e l i e v i n g he s h o u l d be p a i d

a t a h i g h e r r a t e o f p a y f o r t h e d u t i e s he p e r f o r m e d , he f i l e d a

wage and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a p p e a l p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 2-18-1011,

MCA. Mr. S e l o n c h o s e t h e Montana P u b l i c Employees A s s o c i a t i o n

(MPEA) t o r e p r e s e n t him i n t h e a p p e a l .

S e c t i o n 2-18-1011, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t t h a t an employee

may f i l e a c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e BPA r e g a r d i n g t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of

h i s p o s i t i o n and be h e a r d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a g r i e v a n c e

p r o c e d u r e t o be p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e BPA. The BPA h a s p r o m u l g a t e d

a n d a d o p t e d a f o u r - s t e p g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e which is s e t f o r t h i n

A.R.M. S e c . 24.26.508.

Mr. S e l o n l s a p p e a l proceeded t h r o u g h each s t e p of t h e

g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e u n t i l it was e v e n t u a l l y f i l e d w i t h t h e BPA a s

r e q u i r e d i n s t e p f o u r of t h a t p r o c e d u r e . No a c t i o n w a s t a k e n

b y t h e BPA o n t h e a p p e a l u n t i l t h e f a l l of 1 9 7 9 .

I n March 1 9 7 9 t h e DOA and MPEA p r e s e n t e d to t h e BPA a

c o n s e n t agreement which provided t h a t i n a l l a p p e a l s w h e r e i n t h e

e m p l o y e e w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e MPEA t h e p a r t i e s would p r o c e e d

under an a l t e r n a t i v e g r i e v a n c e procedure. The p u r p o s e o f t h e

a g r e e m e n t w a s t o e x p e d i t e a p p e a l s b e f o r e t h e BPA.

Mr. S e l o n l s a p p e a l w a s p r o c e s s e d b y t h e BPA t h a t f a l l

a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms o f t h e c o n s e n t a g r e e m e n t ; and a s p r o v i d e d

t h e r e i n , t h e BPA a p p o i n t e d a n i n v e s t i g a t o r to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e

c o n t e n t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s and r e n d e r a p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n . On November 1 3 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r m a i l e d t o t h e p a r t i e s h i s p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n t h a t S e l o n ' s p o s i t i o n s h o u l d be r e c l a s s i f i e d

t o Grade 11. The DOA r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of h i s d e c i s i o n on November 1 4 , and on December 5 m a i l e d t o t h e BPA i t s e x c e p t i o n s to t h a t decision.

A d i s p u t e a r o s e a s t o w h e t h e r t h e e x c e p t i o n s to t h e p r e l i m i -

n a r y d e c i s i o n were t i m e l y f i l e d by t h e DOA u n d e r t h e terms of t h e

consent agreement. By o r d e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980 , t h e admi- n i s t r a t o r o f t h e BPA r u l e d t h a t t h e D O A 8 s e x c e p t i o n s had n o t b e e n

t i m e l y f i l e d and t h a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n of t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r

was t o s t a n d a s t h e f i n a l o r d e r of t h e BPA. On J a n u a r y 1 6 t h e DOA moved t h e BPA t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s o r d e r . The m o t i o n was d e n i e d

and t h e o r d e r o f J a n u a r y 1 0 became f i n a l . T h e r e a f t e r , t h e DOA

p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of t h e f i n a l o r d e r u n d e r MAPA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r

l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The DOA a p p e a l s . The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e ~ i s t r i c tC o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r MAPA t o j u d i c i a l l y r e v i e w t h e BPA1s f i n a l

order.

Under MAPA a p e r s o n who h a s e x h a u s t e d a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s is e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i f he is a g g r i e v e d by a f i n a l decision i n a contested case. S e c t i o n 2 - 4 - 7 0 2 ( l ) ( a ) , MCA. A " c o n t e s t e d c a s e " is d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 2-4-102(4) , MCA,

a s follows: " ' C o n t e s t e d case1 means any p r o c e e d i n g , b e f o r e a n a g e n c y i n which a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l e g a l r i g h t s , d u t i e s , o r p r i - v i l e g e s o f a p a r t y is r e q u i r e d by l a w to be made a f t e r - o p p o r - an t u n i t y f o r h e a r i n g . " (Emphasis added. ) The f i n a l o r d e r of t h e BPA was n o t a f i n a l o r d e r i n a con- t e s t e d case. I t was n o t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made a f t e r a n o p p o r -

t u n i t y for a hearing. The BPA d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e D O A ' s e x c e p - t i o n s t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r l s p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n were u n t i m e l y

f i l e d ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e DOA was n o t e n t i t l e d to a h e a r i n g u n d e r t h e terms o f t h e a g r e e m e n t which p r o v i d e d t h a t any h e a r i n g would be l i m i t e d i n scope t o the i s s u e s presented i n the f i l e d e x c e p t i o n s .

J u d i c i a l r e v i e w u n d e r M P i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y when t h e r e h a s AA been an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a hearing. T h e r e was no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g i n t h i s case, and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e DOA's p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review.

Af f irmed .

Chief J u s t i c e

W e concur: