Title: BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS v DEPT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14886 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 MONTANA STATE BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS, HUGH V. LARSON, Petitioners and Appellants, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY, RON RICHARDS, DIRECTOR; MONTANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and for the County of Hill Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Weber, BOSC~, Kuhr, Dugdale, Warner & Martin, Havre, Montana John Warner argued, Havre, Montana For Respondents: Jack A. Holstrom argued, Highway Legal Dept., Helena, Montana For Amicus Curiae: James Gardner, Helena, Montana Submitted: February 28, 1980 Decided: fflfi'l 2 jg$fi Filed: ! $ ! : - ( . , a. M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court . Hugh Larson appeals from an order of t h e H i l l County D i s t r i c t Court which determined a s a matter of l a w t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l evidence d i d n o t support t h e Board of Personnel Appeal's finding t h a t t h e Highway Department u n f a i r l y denied him promotion f o r t h e Conrad sectionman p o s i t i o n . Larson a l s o appeals t h e D i s t r i c t Court order i n s o f a r as it denies payment of h i s a t t o r n e y f e e s . Larson's grievance concerns t h e f a i l u r e of t h e Montana Highway Department (Department) t o promote him t o t h e posi- t i o n of sectionman f o r t h e Conrad area. The Conrad section- man p o s i t i o n was c r e a t e d i n late summer o r e a r l y f a l l of 1977 as a r e s u l t of t h e 1977 L e g i s l a t u r e ' s t r a n s f e r of a s e c t i o n of highway between Dupuyer and Conrad t o t h e respon- s i b i l i t y of t h e Highway Department. The Chief of t h e Main- tenance Bureau, Joseph Timmons, s e n t a personnel r e q u i s i t i o n f o r t h e new p o s i t i o n t o t h e Administrator of Maintenance, Donald Gruel. Gruel i n t u r n forwarded t h e r e q u i s i t i o n t o LeRoy Broughton, t h e Personnel Director, who posted n o t i c e of t h e job opening on October 1 4 , 1977. Three men, Hugh Larson, Leonard Nygaard, and Chester Sanders applied f o r t h e p o s i t i o n . Nygaard d i d n o t properly follow t h e a p p l i c a t i o n procedures and was n o t s e r i o u s l y con- sidered. Chester Sanders, t h e brother-in-law of Personnel Director Broughton, d i d n o t have a s much s e n i o r i t y o r ex- perience operating highway equipment a s Larson. However, Larson w a s involved i n t h r e e i n c i d e n t s of questionable conduct which r e f l e c t e d on h i s r e l i a b i l i t y a s an employee. Two o r t h r e e summers p r i o r t o t h e hearing before t h e examiner, Larson, and two o t h e r employees went t o Big Sandy during lunch f o r some beer. Their work s t r i p i n g t h e highways t h a t afternoon w a s highly e r r a t i c . The second i n c i d e n t occurred i n September 1972 a t Browning, when Larson took a day o f f t o go hunting. Although Larson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he received permission t o be away from work, t h e r e w a s o t h e r testimony t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t Larson's immediate supervisor received no n o t i c e t h a t Larson would be gone and t h a t Larson's absence caused a delay i n s t r i p i n g t h e highway. The f i n a l i n c i d e n t occurred a t Chinook when t h e p a i n t machine operated improperly and blew p a i n t over t h e road. Larson made numerous attempts t o g e t t h e machine t o o p e r a t e properly, b u t each a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t r e s u l t e d i n an e r r a t i c spraying of p a i n t on t h e highway. Sanders, on t h e o t h e r hand, has no record of misconduct i n h i s personnel f i l e . Two of Sanders' fellow employees t e s t i f i e d a t t h e hearing on Larson's grievance t h a t Sanders drank on t h e job and t h a t on one occasion he f e l l a s l e e p while operating a piece of highway machinery. However, no r e p o r t of t h i s misconduct w a s ever given t o management. On November 2, 1977, f i v e days a f t e r t h e c l o s i n g of b i d s f o r t h e opening, Donald Gruel s e l e c t e d Sanders f o r t h e new p o s i t i o n . About two weeks later, Larson f i l e d a griev- ance p r o t e s t i n g t h e Department's s e l e c t i o n of Sanders as t h e new sectionman. The Board of Personnel Appeals ("BPA") conducted an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e matters s t a t e d i n t h e grievance, and on February 22, 1978, t h e hearings examiner conducted a hearing on t h e m a t t e r . The examiner issued a recommended order i n which he found t h a t h i r i n g of new Department employees was governed by ~ r t i c l e 7 of an agree- ment between t h e Department and t h e union (AFSCME) which provided t h a t ". . . [Elxperience, q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , c a p a b i l i t i e s , and length of s e r v i c e s h a l l be f a c t o r s f o r awarding advance- ments." H e concluded t h a t t h e "department was not a c t i n g i n good f a i t h i n awarding t h e advancement t o M r . Sanders over M r . Larson" and t h a t "the department v i o l a t e d the c o n t r a c t between AFSCME and i t s e l f by not applying t h e mandated c r i t e r i a i n awarding advancements . . ." The examiner's recommended order awarded Larson with t h e sectionman posi- t i o n and backpay between h i s c u r r e n t rate of pay and t h a t of a grade 13, s t e p 1 from November 2 , 1977, t o t h e d a t e t h e order is implemented. The Highway Department f i l e d exceptions t o t h e examiner's recommended order. The BPA denied t h e exceptions and adopted adopted t h e t h e findings of f a c t , conclusions of law, andhecommended order of the examiner a s its f i n a l order. The B P A and Larson petitioned t h e H i l l County D i s t r i c t Court f o r enforcement of t h e BPA's f i n a l order. The D i s - t r i c t Court, however, found t h a t t h e record as a whole d i d n o t support the BPA1s finding t h a t t h e Department d i d not act i n good f a i t h and v i o l a t e d t h e t e r m s of its agreement with t h e union, and t h a t the order w a s i n v a l i d and unenforce- able. Larson appeals t h e D i s t r i c t Court's d e n i a l of enforce- ment of t h e B P A order. The B P A has f i l e d an amicus c u r i a e b r i e f i n support of Larson's appeal. Larson and t h e BPA argue t h a t t h e BPA has the a u t h o r i t y t o award t h e promotion t o Larson i f it f i n d s Larson is more q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e opening because he has more s e n i o r i t y . The BPA found t h a t t h e Department should have given g r e a t e r weight t o t h e applicants' s e n i o r i t y and t h a t Larson w a s e n t i t l e d t o the promotion because he had more experience on road machinery and more s e n i o r i t y than Sanders. The Depart- ment, however, is not required to favor senior employees for promotion. The union contract governing the Department's promotion of its employees provides that advancements shall be made on the basis of the applicant's experience, qualifications, capabilities, and length of service. The contract does not require the Department to give greater weight to seniority than the other factors. Donald Gruel was aware that Larson had more seniority than the other applicants, but he relied heavily on the opinion of Joseph Timmons, the Chief of Maintenance. Although Timmons made no formal recommenda- tion, he informed Gruel that he thought Sanders was a better man for the job than Larson. The BPA placed greater weight on Larson's experience with road machinery than the Department. However, Larson's edge in experience in this category is somewhat misleading. Sanders also has had considerable experience at jobs above his present grade level, and in fact had over 300 hours experience operating complicated machinery. Furthermore, at the sectionman level, Sanders had 132 hours experience while Larson had none. The BPA also found fault with the Department's assess- ment of Larson's misconduct and concluded that the Depart- ment judged the misconduct serious enough to exclude Larson from consideration for the opening. There is no evidence to support BPA's conclusion. Nor can we say the Department lacked the discretion to determine Sanders was the better man for the job because his work record indicated he was more reliable. In sum, we conclude the BPA made an independent judg- ment as to which man was more qualified for the job rather than determining whether t h e Department abused i t s d i s c r e - t i o n i n s e l e c t i n g Sanders. The record a s a whole supports t h e conclusion t h a t t h e Department followed t h e c o n t r a c t g u i d e l i n e s f o r promotion of i t s employees. Larson's second contention is t h a t t h e Department's s e l e c t i o n of Sanders was biased. The B P A i n i t s conclusions of l a w s t a t e d t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t a c t i n good f a i t h . It based t h i s conclusion on i t s f i n d i n g s t h a t Larson w a s more q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e job, and t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t use experience, q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , c a p a b i l i t i e s , and length of s e r v i c e t o award advancement. Along t h i s l i n e , it s t a t e d t h a t Gruel w a s unusually vague i n h i s tc?stimony concerning Sanders' s e l e c t i o n . The B P A found t h a t Gruel had r e l i e d on Sanders' previous employment record, b u t t h a t h i s employment record d i d n o t support t h i s r e l i a n c e . The B P A a l s o found Gruel's f a i l u r e t o read a l e t t e r of recommendation submitted on behalf of Larson w a s suspicious. The c e n t r a l p o i n t of t h e BPA's a n a l y s i s i s , however, contained i n t h e following findings: "Where it i s unrefuted by t h e highway department t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e of promoting a man with more s e n i o r i t y t o t h e s e c t i o n man p o s i t i o n has always been followed and where t h e r e has been no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r n o t following t h a t p a s t prac- tice, t h e a c t i o n of t h e highway becomes suspect. But where t h e brother-in-law of t h e administrator of t h e personnel d i v i s i o n of t h e department of highways i s t h e f i r s t i n d i v i d u a l t o g e t a promotion over an employee with more s e n i o r i t y , t h e a c t i o n becomes highly suspect." Simply s t a t e d , t h e record does n o t support t h e s e find- ings. Rather than going i n t o a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of each of t h e circumstances discussed by t h e BPA, l e t it simply be s a i d t h a t t h e r e a r e no hard f a c t s i n support of t h e conclu- s i o n t h a t nepotism occurred here. LeRoy Broughton i s t h e brother-in-law of Sanders, b u t Broughton's p o s i t i o n as personnel administrator i s purely a c l e r i c a l p o s i t i o n . He has no a u t h o r i t y t o award t h e advancement here. Further- more, t h e BPA's conclusion t h a t s e n i o r highway employees have always been p r e f e r r e d f o r promotions within t h e Depart- ment has no e v i d e n t i a r y foundation. The o t h e r circumstances r a i s e d by t h e B P A suggest t h a t Gruel d i d n o t conduct a thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Even assuming a less than thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h i s f a c t does n o t by i t s e l f t r a n s l a t e i n t o bad f a i t h conduct. There must be more, and more i s n o t shown i n t h e record before us. There i s no need t o d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n l i g h t of our d e c i s i o n upholding t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n reversing t h e Board of Personnel Appeals. The judgment i s affirmed. I - / ( . i I , . , ' ' , /U/ &-s[u- 1'- > f, J u s t i c e / I " W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e I . . norable L. C. Gulbrandson, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n place of M r . J u s t i c e Sheehy i M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e .