Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals of Washington

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections

81 P.3d 875, 119 Wash. App. 478

CourtCourt of Appeals of Washington

DecidedNovember 12, 2003

DocketNo. 29521-1-II

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 81 P.3d 875 (Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehouse & Helpers Union Local No. 313 v. Department of Corrections, 81 P.3d 875, 119 Wash. App. 478 (Wash. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Morgan, J.

Teamsters Local No. 313 (the Union) sued the Departments of Personnel, Financial Management, and Corrections for not properly adopting salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm, addressing each department separately.

We first address the Department of Personnel (DOP). RCW 41.06.150 and RCW 41.06.160 require DOP to adopt and recommend to the governor and the director of financial management salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates. Whatever schedules DOP adopts are “subject to approval” by the director of financial management, by the governor (because the governor ultimately controls what the director of financial management sends to the legislature), and ultimately by the legislature itself.¹ The record in this case shows, so clearly that reasonable minds could not differ, that DOP adopted and forwarded to the director of financial management, the governor, and the legislature recommended salary schedules, including “applied survey [480]*480salary ranges,”² that compared the salaries of state employees with prevailing wage rates. These salary schedules included and thus “reflected” prevailing wage rates, just as the law requires. DOP did not breach any duty, and the trial court properly dismissed it as a defendant.

We next address the Department of Financial Management (OFM). It has statutory authority to approve salary schedules “in accordance with [chapter 43.88 RCW.]”³ The Union has not shown that OFM deviated from that authority. OFM did not breach any duty, and the trial court properly dismissed it as a defendant.

We next address the Department of Corrections (DOC). As the Union acknowledges, DOC can pay only those salaries that the legislature has chosen to fund. The Union has not shown, or even argued, that DOC is paying salaries different from those the legislature has chosen to fund. DOC did not breach any duty, and the trial properly dismissed it as a defendant.

The Union’s real assertion is that one or more of the defendants must not only adopt and recommend, but also implement, a salary schedule that reflects prevailing wage rates. In our view, however, the implementing body is the legislature and not any of the defendant departments. Accordingly, we find no error.

Affirmed.

Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ., concur.

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

Morgan, J.

Teamsters Local No. 313 (the Union) sued the Departments of Personnel, Financial Management, and Corrections for not properly adopting salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm, addressing each department separately.

We first address the Department of Personnel (DOP). RCW 41.06.150 and RCW 41.06.160 require DOP to adopt and recommend to the governor and the director of financial management salary schedules that reflect prevailing wage rates. Whatever schedules DOP adopts are “subject to approval” by the director of financial management, by the governor (because the governor ultimately controls what the director of financial management sends to the legislature), and ultimately by the legislature itself.¹ The record in this case shows, so clearly that reasonable minds could not differ, that DOP adopted and forwarded to the director of financial management, the governor, and the legislature recommended salary schedules, including “applied survey [480]*480salary ranges,”² that compared the salaries of state employees with prevailing wage rates. These salary schedules included and thus “reflected” prevailing wage rates, just as the law requires. DOP did not breach any duty, and the trial court properly dismissed it as a defendant.

We next address the Department of Financial Management (OFM). It has statutory authority to approve salary schedules “in accordance with [chapter 43.88 RCW.]”³ The Union has not shown that OFM deviated from that authority. OFM did not breach any duty, and the trial court properly dismissed it as a defendant.

We next address the Department of Corrections (DOC). As the Union acknowledges, DOC can pay only those salaries that the legislature has chosen to fund. The Union has not shown, or even argued, that DOC is paying salaries different from those the legislature has chosen to fund. DOC did not breach any duty, and the trial properly dismissed it as a defendant.

The Union’s real assertion is that one or more of the defendants must not only adopt and recommend, but also implement, a salary schedule that reflects prevailing wage rates. In our view, however, the implementing body is the legislature and not any of the defendant departments. Accordingly, we find no error.

Affirmed.

Bridgewater and Armstrong, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 P.3d 875, 119 Wash. App. 478, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/teamsters-chauffeurs-warehouse-helpers-union-local-no-313-v-washctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack