Title: In Re Hood

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No.  88-271


In re Grievance of                           Supreme Court
Robert L. Hood and
Thomas O. Mahar, Jr.                         On Appeal from
                                             Labor Relations Board

                                             October Term, 1989


Dinah  Yessne, Acting Chair

Michael R.Zimmerman, VSEA Staff Attorney, Montpelier, for plaintiffs-
  appellees

Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Michael Seibert, Assistant
  Attorney General, Montpelier, for defendant-appellant


PRESENT:  Allen, Peck, Gibson and Morse, JJ., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.),
          Specially Assigned


       ALLEN, J.  The State appeals from a decision of the Vermont Labor
Relations Board restoring two state employees to their former pay grades and
awarding them back pay for wages lost as a result of their "involuntary
demotion."  We reverse.
     On January 14, 1987, Governor Madeline Kunin, citing 3 V.S.A. {{ 209
and 2001, (FN1) signed an executive order that provided, in part, as follows:
            [I] do hereby transfer the following positions and
          incumbents from the Agency of Environmental Conserva-
          tion, Department of Water Resources, to the Department
          of Labor & Industry, with position duties to be defined
          by the Department of Labor & Industry and the appro-
          priate classification action to be taken by the
          Department of Personnel, both to be completed by the
          effective date of the transfer:

               WA 0130, Plumbing Review Chief
               WA 0139, Environmental Technician C
Grievant Robert Hood, Jr., a classified state employee since 1960, and
grievant Thomas Mahar, Jr., a classified state employee since 1972, were the
two "incumbents" affected by the order.  Pursuant to that order, (FN2) on April
16, 1987, the Commissioner of the Department of Labor & Industry sent to the
Department of Personnel a description of the duties for the revised Plumbing
Inspector class, a recommendation that the pay grade for the class be
increased from pay grade 17 to pay grade 18, and a memorandum that included
the following language:
          As you can see from the Executive Order this will result
          in an involuntary demotion for the two AEC employees.  I
          understand that reduction in force procedures are not
          necessary to do and that the incumbents' salaries will
          not be reduced.
On April 22, 1987, the Director of Personnel Operations informed the
Commissioner that the two positions named in the order had been reallocated
to the class of Plumbing Inspector, which had been reassigned to pay grade
18.  See 3 V.S.A. { 310(a) (Department of Personnel has duty to classify
positions based on job descriptions).  On May 1, 1987, the Commissioner
informed grievants that because the reallocation of their former positions
represented an "involuntary demotion" for them (Hood had been at pay grade
20 while Mahar had been at pay grade 19), their current salaries would not
be reduced. (FN3)
     Grievants reported for work at the Department of Labor & Industry on
May 17, 1987.  Although grievants retained their current salaries, they
suffered adverse economic consequences as a result of the State's actions.
Because Hood's salary was above the maximum for pay grade 18, he was pre-
cluded from later moving to a higher step within the pay scale.  Similarly,
Mahar would derive smaller salary increases from future stepups within the
pay scale.
     In July of 1987, Hood and Mahar filed a grievance alleging that they
were unlawfully demoted in violation of the collective bargaining agreement
(Contract) between the State and the Vermont State Employees' Association.
The Vermont Labor Relations Board ordered that the grievants be restored to
their former pay grade, with back pay.  The Board's ruling was based on its
conclusion that the Contract and the personnel rules permitted an employee
to be demoted only when there was a reduction in the work force, (FN4) which did
not occur here.  While conceding that the executive order had authorized
"appropriate classification action," the Board reasoned that any such action
cannot prejudice an employee beyond what is permitted by the Contract and
personnel rules.  According to the Board, while positions may be
"reallocated" downward as a result of a classification review, employees
are "transferred" or "demoted."
     Despite the deferential standard accorded to Board determinations, see
Vermont State Colleges Faculty Fed'n v. Vermont State Colleges, 151 Vt. 457,
460, 561 A.2d 417, 419-20 (1989), we reject the Board's conclusion that the
State's actions in this matter violated the Contract and the personnel
rules.  The Board's reasoning was as follows: (1) The executive order
"transferred" the grievants.  (2) Personnel Rule 2.041 defines "transfer" as
a change of an employee to a position within the same pay grade.  (3)  The
Contract defines "demotion" as "the change of an employee from one pay
scale to another pay scale for which a lower maximum rate of pay is
provided."  (4) Grievants were moved to a pay scale with a lower maximum
rate of pay; hence, they were "demoted."  (5) Personnel Rule 11.05 allows
the demotion of employees "for cause" or "because of reduction in force."
(6) There was no reduction in work force and Article 17 of the Contract
prohibits demotion as a disciplinary step.  (7) Therefore, the State's
actions constituted an unauthorized demotion.
     We conclude that the Board's reasoning is flawed because both the
Contract and the personnel rules authorized the State's actions here, which
are more accurately characterized as implementing downward reallocations,
not demotions.
     The construction of collective bargaining agreements is governed by
traditional principles of contract law.  Vermont State Colleges, 151 Vt. at
461, 561 A.2d  at 420.  "A fundamental maxim of contract law is that in con-
struing an agreement effect should, if possible, be given to every material
provision as part of an intergrated whole."  Id.; see also In re Stacey, 138
Vt. 68, 72-73,