Opinion ID: 1901671
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Smith and Myers

Text: DPSCS is no longer contesting the ALJ's factual determinations bearing on whether Smith was performing duties assigned to the APS II position or that, as a result, Myers was performing duties assigned to the APS Supervisor position. Its only point now is that, at least in the absence of finding some defect in DBM's reclassification procedure, the ALJ had no authority to direct the reclassifications. Its view seems to be that the ALJ should either have denied the grievances or, at most, directed a restudy of the grievants' situations by DPSCS in consultation with DBM. We disagree. As we have observed, grievance is defined very broadly. With only those exceptions enumerated in SPP § 12-101(c)(2), the term includes any dispute between an employee and the State agency about the interpretation of and application to the employee of a personnel policy or regulation adopted by the Secretary or any other policy or regulation over which management has control. See SPP § 12-101(c)(1). The only kinds of disputes excluded from that definition are disputes over (1) a pay grade or range for a class, (2) the amount or effective date of a statewide pay increase, (3) the establishment of a class, (4) the assignment of a class to a service category, (5) the establishment of classification standards, and (6) an oral reprimand or counseling. There is nothing in the definition remotely suggesting that a dispute over whether an employee is performing duties that have been assigned to a different position and, for that reason, is entitled to be reclassified to the position to which those duties have been assigned, is excluded from the grievance procedure, and, indeed, both the statute and the regulations promulgated by DBM expressly recognize that kind of reclassification grievance. SPP § 7-102(e) requires that the duties and responsibilities assigned to a position shall be consistent with the duties and responsibilities for the position's assigned class and provides that [a]n employee may grieve the assignment of duties and responsibilities ... if those assigned duties and responsibilities clearly are applicable to a different class. That was precisely the nature of Smith's and Myers's grievances. The regulations adopted by DBM expressly reference SPP § 7-102. COMAR 17.04.02.01B states that a grievance involving a position reclassification is governed by SPP §§§ 7-102(e), 12-101(b)(2), 12-205, and COMAR 17.04.06.05. That latter regulation requires that, if a grievance is based on a position's classification, the head of the principal unit must assure that a classification study of the employee's position was made within a year prior to the initiation of the grievance. That was done in this case. The DBM study that led to the grievances was completed May 31, 2001, and the grievances were filed in September, 2001. Unquestionably, an employee may use the grievance procedure to complain that the employee's duties and responsibilities are those assigned to a different classification. Indeed, as we observed, SPP § 12-103(b) provides that, unless another procedure is provided by SPP, the grievance procedure is the exclusive remedy through which a nontemporary employee in the [SPMS] may seek an administrative remedy for violations of the provisions of this article. The administrative procedure ends with the decision of an ALJ, who is the final decision maker. [1] SPP § 12-401 provides that the decision maker at any step in the grievance procedure shall determine not only the proper interpretation or application of the policy, procedure, or regulation involved in the grievance but also the appropriate remedy. It would seem virtually axiomatic that, if the final decision maker  the ALJ  determines, as he did here, that the employee's duties and responsibilities are those assigned to another classification, the principal remedy would have to be either to strip those duties or responsibilities from the employee or direct a reclassification of the employee to the position to which those duties and responsibilities are assigned. Otherwise, the grievance procedure would be a farce. SPP § 12-402 makes that authority clear. Section 12-402(a) provides that, except as provided in subsection (b), dealing with back pay orders, the remedies available to a grievant under this title are limited to the restoration of the rights, pay, status, or benefits that the grievant otherwise would have had if the contested policy, procedure, or regulation had been applied appropriately as determined by the final decision maker. Restoration of such rights, pay, status, or benefits may well require a reclassification; otherwise, the rights, pay, status, and benefits awarded to the successful grievant would be incompatible with the employee's position and thus incompatible with SPP § 4-201. Section 12-402(b) supports that principle. It provides, in relevant part, that [i]n a reclassification grievance back pay may be awarded for a period not exceeding 1 year before the grievance procedure was initiated. The back pay necessarily must reflect the additional compensation attached to the position that the employee should have had if the contested policy, procedure, or regulation had been applied appropriately as determined by the final decision maker. See § 12-402(a). We do not share DPSCS's view that allowing the ALJ, as the final decision maker in a grievance proceeding, to direct an appropriate reclassification will significantly impinge upon the jurisdiction and responsibility of either the principal unit or DBM in devising or implementing the classification system; nor will it jeopardize the integrity of the SPMS. The ALJ is not changing the definition or description of classes or positions but is simply determining, based on the facts presented, that a particular employee is executing duties and responsibilities that those agencies have assigned to a different position and that the employee is therefore entitled to be in that position.