Opinion ID: 1651071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Transfer or Employment

Text: Because a person outside the Department of Public Safety was hired for one of the positions for which he had applied, Stammeyer argues he should have been treated as a new applicant competing with other applicants for a vacant position. Under this theory, he would thereby receive the veterans' preference and retain his right to petition the district court directly without any reference to the collective bargaining agreement. Stated another way, Stammeyer argues his request for an inter-divisional transfer to DNE should be treated the same as a request from a new, non-transferring applicant; otherwise, there would be an unfair distinction between a current veteran employee and a new hire and he would lose the preference granted in section 35C.1. The State contends this argument was not preserved for appellate review because the district court did not rule on the issue and Stammeyer did not file a motion asking the court to enlarge its findings to rule upon the issue. The State's argument is based on the fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them on appeal. Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Group, 666 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Iowa 2003). When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a ruling in order to preserve error for appeal. Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). If the court does not rule on an issue and neither party files a motion requesting the district court to do so, there is nothing before us to review. Wilson, 666 N.W.2d at 167. Such is the case at hand. At the conclusion of its ruling, the district court stated: For the reasons set out above, the former statute controls over the latter, and this court does not have jurisdiction over the present dispute. As such, there is no reason to reach the appellee's [the State's] second argument regarding the applicability of chapter 35C to intraagency transfers. There is nothing indicating the court ruled upon or even considered Stammeyer's new hire/transfer argument. Despite the missing ruling, Stammeyer contends he did not need to file a further motion because it strains credulity to suggest that a further ruling from the district court would be necessary to preserve error on this point. Stammeyer claims the district court was presented with the argument, but in light of its ruling on the issue, it could not reach the latter argument. We disagree. If there are alternative claims or defenses, and the district court does not rule on all alternative claims or defenses, the losing party must file a posttrial motion to preserve error on the claims or defenses not ruled on. See, e.g., Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 343 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Iowa 1984) (We do not pass on alternative arguments and matters set forth in defendants' motions for summary judgment that were not specifically addressed by the trial court's ruling.). This new hire/transfer argument is distinct from the court's ruling which considers whether the collective bargaining agreement controls the grievance procedure. This can best be described as an even-if argumenteven if the court finds Stammeyer should have followed the grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement because he was a current employee competing with other current employees for a job transfer, he could still pursue a chapter 35C claim in district court because he was (for at least one of the positions) competing against an applicant who was not a current employee. For whatever reason, the district court did not address Stammeyer's even-if argument, and Stammeyer did not file a motion requesting that the court do so. Without such a ruling or motion requesting a ruling, there is nothing for us to review on this issue. See id.