Title: SELON v BD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

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~artment of Administration, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Barry Hjort, Helena, Montana James Gardner, Bd. Personnel Appeals, Helena, Montana Filed: Submitted on briefs: July 24, 1981 Decided : i 4 . Clerk M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . The S t a t e Department of A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (DOA) brought an a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of L e w i s and C l a r k County seeking j u d i c i a l r e v i e w under t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e Procedure A c t (IJIAPA) o f a f i n a l o r d e r of t h e S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals (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 appeal f i l e d by Ted J. Selon. The D i s t r i c t Court dismissed DOA' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w 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. Selon was employed by t h e Department of Highways as a g e n e r a l o f f ice c l e r k ; and i n 1976, b e l i e v i n g he should be paid a t a h i g h e r rate of pay f o r t h e d u t i e s he performed, 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. M r . Selon chose 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 with 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 heard under 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 to be p r e s c r i b e d by t h e BPA. The BPA h a s promulgated and adopted a f o u r - s t e p g r i e v a n c e procedure which is set f o r t h i n A.R.M. Sec. 24.26.508. M r . S e l o n l s a p p e a l proceeded through each s t e p of t h e g r i e v a n c e procedure 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 as r e q u i r e d i n s t e p f o u r of t h a t procedure. N o a c t i o n w a s t a k e n by t h e BPA on t h e a p p e a l u n t i l t h e f a l l of 1979. I n March 1979 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 wherein t h e employee w a s r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e M P E A t h e p a r t i e s would proceed under an a l t e r n a t i v e g r i e v a n c e procedure. The purpose of t h e agreement 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. M r . S e l o n l s a p p e a l w a s processed by t h e BPA t h a t f a l l a c c o r d i n g to t h e terms of t h e c o n s e n t agreement; and as provided t h e r e i n , t h e BPA a p p o i n t e d an 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 of 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 13, 1979, t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r mailed 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 Selon' s p o s i t i o n should 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 14 , and on December 5 mailed t o t h e BPA i t s e x c e p t i o n s to t h a t d e c i s i o n . A d i s p u t e a r o s e a s t o whether the e x c e p t i o n s to t h e prelimi- 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 under t h e terms of t h e c o n s e n t agreement. By o r d e r dated J a n u a r y 10 , 1980 , t h e admi- n i s t r a t o r of 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 been 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. O n J a n u a r y 16 t h e DOA moved t h e BPA t o r e c o n s i d e r its o r d e r . The motion was denied and t h e o r d e r of January 10 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 District Court f o r j u d i c i a l review of t h e f i n a l o r d e r under MAPA. The District Court dismissed 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 appeal is whether t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n under M A P A to j u d i c i a l l y review t h e BPA1s f i n a l o r d e r . Under M A P A a person who has exhausted a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies is e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l review i f he is aggrieved by a f i n a l d e c i s i o n i n a c o n t e s t e d c a s e . S e c t i o n 2-4-702(l) ( a ) , MCA. A " c o n t e s t e d c a s e " is defined i n s e c t i o n 2-4-102(4) , MCA, a s follows: " 'Contested case1 means any proceeding, b e f o r e an agency 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 , or p r i - v i l e g e s of a p a r t y is r e q u i r e d by law to be made a f t e r - an oppor- 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 not a f i n a l o r d e r i n a con- t e s t e d case. It was n o t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made af t e r an oppor- t u n i t y f o r a hearing. The BPA determined t h a t t h e DOA's excep- 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 untimely f i l e d ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e DOA was not e n t i t l e d to a hearing under t h e terms of the agreement which provided t h a t any hearing would be l i m i t e d i n scope t o t h e i s s u e s presented i n t h e f i l e d e x c e p t i o n s . J u d i c i a l review under M A P A is a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y when t h e r e h a s been an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a hearing. There was no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a hearing i n t h i s case, and t h e District Court p r o p e r l y dismissed 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: