Case ID: so2d_659/html/0075-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "KENNEDY, Justice. BUTTS, Justice", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1984 v. ALABAMA STATE DOCKS DEPARTMENT.
    1930971.
    Supreme Court of Alabama.
    April 7, 1995.
    
      J. Cecil Gardner and Christopher E. Krafchak of Gardner, Middlebrooks & Fleming, P.C., Mobile, for appellant.
    Carl Robert Gottlieb, Jr. and Kenneth A. Watson of Reams, Philips, Brooks, Schell, Gaston & Hudson, P.C., Mobile, for appellee.
   KENNEDY, Justice.

The plaintiff, the International Longshoremen’s Association, Local 1984 (“ILA”), appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the Alabama State Docks Department. At issue is whether the State Docks Department can provide salaried employees with greater insurance benefits than it provides to its hourly paid union employees.

The following material facts are undisputed:

The State Docks Department provides insurance benefits for its salaried employees through the State Employees Health Insurance Plan, Ala.Code 1975, § 36-29-1 et seq. The insurance benefits provided to ILA members who are hourly paid State Docks employees (“ILA member employees”), gives those employees a lesser level of benefits than the State Employees Health Insurance Plan affords the salaried employees.

The ILA argues that this disparity in insurance benefits violates Ala.Code 1975, § 33-l-5.2(d), and it argues that the salaried employees’ benefits must be decreased to a level in line with'the benefits received by ILA member employees. Relevant to this issue is Alabama Code 1975, § 33-1-5.2, which provides, in pertinent part:

“(a) The Alabama state docks department is hereby authorized to provide and establish a plan of life and health insurance for the salaried officers and employees of Alabama state docks who work full time....
“(d) The benefits provided for herein shall not exceed the benefits provided to employees of the Alabama state docks department subject to collective bargaining agreements.”

Section 33-l-5.2(a) “authorize^” the State Docks Department to “provide and establish” an insurance plan for its salaried employees, but it does not purport to require such a plan. Section 33-l-5.2(d) limits the salaried employees’ benefits that can be provided pursuant to subsection (a), by directing that “the benefits provided for herein [to salaried employees] shall not exceed the benefits provided to the employees of the Alabama state docks department subject to collective bargaining agreements,” here, the ILA member employees. We emphasize that it is undisputed that the benefits provided salaried employees are not provided under § 33-1-5.2, which is subject to the limitation on salaried employees’ insurance benefits found in § 33-l-5.2(d). The State Docks Department has obtained coverage for salaried employees pursuant to a different statutory scheme, the State Employee Health Insurance Plan, provided for at § 36-29-1 et seq.

A careful review of § 33-l-5.2(d) indicates that nothing in its language directs that it should apply to any other statutory scheme. It expressly and unequivocally applies to “the benefits provided for herein [pursuant to § 33-1-5.2].” (Emphasis added.) By its clear language, § 33 — 1—5.2(d) would apply to require that salaried employees’ insurance benefits not exceed those of the ILA member employees only if the salaried employees’ insurance benefits were provided under § 33-1-5.2, i.e., if the benefits were “benefits provided for herein.” The benefits in issue are not provided under § 33-1-5.2, but are provided pursuant to another statutory scheme. We hold, therefore, that the limitation at § 33 — 1—1.5(d) does not apply in this ease, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

AFFIRMED.

MADDOX, ALMON, SHORES, HOUSTON and INGRAM, JJ., concur.

BUTTS, J., dissents.

BUTTS, Justice

(dissenting).

I respectfully dissent. Section 33-1-5.2, Ala.Code 1975, authorizes the Alabama State Docks Department to provide a plan of health insurance benefits for its salaried employees, and it clearly mandates that “the benefits provided herein shall not exceed the benefits provided to employees of the Alabama state docks department subject to collective bargaining agreements.” § 33 — 1— 5.2(d) (emphasis added). As a means to this end, the statute authorizes the State Docks Department to establish these equal benefits through contracts with any qualified source. § 33-l-5.2(e).

The defendants look past the plain language of § 33-1-5.2 as a whole in order to focus on the words “provided herein” found in § 33-l-5.2(d). The defendants construe these two words to mean that benefits obtained through the State plan are not “provided” by § 33-1-5.2, because the administration of the State plan is set out separately in its own statute, § 36-29-1 et seq.

When read in its entirety and construed as a whole, however, § 33-1-5.2 clearly provides that a contract of benefits obtained for salaried employees through any “qualified source” falls within the requirements of § 33-1-5.2; the fact that the “qualified source” happens to be the State plan for which there is a general statute of administration does not nullify the legislature’s clearly expressed intent for equality of benefits between salaried employees and employees who are subject to collective bargaining agreements.

In construing two statutes related to the same subject matter, a specific or particular provision controls over a general provision. Baldwin County v. Jenkins, 494 So.2d 584 (Ala.1986). Moreover, if the language of a statute is unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction of the statute and the clearly expressed intent of the legislature must be given effect. IMED Corp. v. Systems Engineering Assocs. Corp., 602 So.2d 344 (Ala.1992). The general statute governing the administration of the State plan does not exempt the State from the specific and unambiguous provisions of § 33-1-5.2.

I would therefore reverse the summary judgment and remand the cause for further proceedings. 
      
      . In so holding, we observe that nothing in the legislature's directive at § 33 — 1—5.2(d) purports to diminish the ILA's bargaining rights. Nothing in our opinion should be construed as infringing on the rights of ILA member employees to negotiate, through the ILA, for better benefits.