Opinion ID: 1403992
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the APA govern intra-agency adjudications, such as employee grievance hearings?

Text: Three arguments advanced by the University of Alaska converge here. The University contends that the statutory framework governing personnel matters for state agencies and public employees shows that the APA does not apply to University grievance proceedings; that grievance procedures are not procedures within AS 44.62.330; and that the APA applies only to adjudicative facts, not legislative facts. The University correctly observes that the State Personnel Act, AS 39.25.010-.220, governs personnel matters for all state employees in non-exempt service positions. AS 39.25.090. Neither those state employees in non-exempt service positions nor state employees covered by the Public Employment Relations Act (PERA), AS 23.40.070-.260, are covered by the APA procedures when grievance proceedings are implicated. [3] Therefore, the University concludes that the the Legislature intended University employees to have only the same rights as state and other public employees in personnel matters... . University employees, however, are exempt from the State Personnel Act. AS 39.25.110(5). Thus, they do not receive the protection of grievance rules promulgated by the Director of Personnel under AS 39.25.150(16). Consequently, the exclusion of other state personnel from the APA does not, in our view, conclusively demonstrate that University personnel should be similarly excluded. The University relies on two statutes in support of its argument that intra-agency grievance proceedings are not the type of proceedings meant to be included within AS 44.62.330. First, the APA's definition of regulation excludes anything which relates only to the internal management of a state agency. AS 44.62.640(a)(3). Second, the State Personnel Act establishes procedures for amendment of personnel rules affecting non-exempt state employees. AS 39.25.140. Subsection (e) of this section states, [t]he rules adopted under this chapter relate to the internal management of state agencies and their adoption is not subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. While the State Personnel Act does not apply to University employees, the University argues, by analogy, that a blanket legislative intent exists not to have the APA apply to employment matters. We believe these arguments are fundamentally flawed. Both statutes refer to the application of the APA to an agency's rulemaking authority, i.e. the adoption of rules. Neither statute applies to an agency's adjudicatory functions. If adjudication and rulemaking were coextensive, these statutes would be controlling here. However, the two functions differ significantly. Rulemaking procedures are designed to ensure a fair and open adoption of policy; adjudication procedures are intended to ensure a fair application of policy to parties. [4] Thus, the fact that rulemaking procedures do not apply to internal personnel rules does not indicate that the protections of the APA's adjudicatory procedures are inapplicable to individual personnel decisions. The APA outlines the manner in which a hearing to determine whether a right, authority, license or privilege should be revoked, suspended, limited, or conditioned is initiated. AS 44.62.360. It similarly informs as to how a hearing to determine whether a right, authority, license or privilege should be granted, issued or renewed is initiated. AS 44.62.370. From these provisions, the University concludes that the APA only covers hearings which concern rights, authorities, licenses, and privileges, and that this does not include intra-agency personnel matters. In support of this argument, the University cites cases from other jurisdictions, holding that their respective administrative procedure acts are inapplicable to agency personnel decisions. [5] The University further contends that the APA adjudication procedures are inapplicable because McGrath is not grieving adjudicative facts, but rather legislative facts. As one court explained, agencies employ rulemaking procedures to resolve broad policy questions affecting many parties and turning on issues of `legislative fact.' Adjudicatory hearing procedures are used in individual cases where the outcome is dependent on the resolution of particular `adjudicative facts.' Independent Bankers Ass'n of Georgia v. Board of Governors of Fed. Reserve Sys., 516 F.2d 1206, 1215 (D.C. Cir.1975). [6] The limitation of administrative adjudicatory hearings to adjudicatory facts is not made explicit in the APA. [7] Nevertheless, the distinction has been recognized. See Wickersham v. State, Commercial Fisheries Entry Comm'n, 680 P.2d 1135, 1143-47 (Alaska 1984) (refusing to apply the more relaxed public notice requirements of rulemaking procedures to adjudicatory procedures which involve individual rights). The structure of the APA, which establishes separate procedures for rulemaking and adjudications, suggests that Alaska has implicitly limited adjudicative functions to adjudicatory facts and rulemaking functions to legislative facts. Compare AS 44.62.010-.320 with AS 44.62.330-.630. See also AS 44.62.640(a)(3) (defining regulation). Further, the distinction is one which must be made in order to determine whether an administrative entity has made an adjudicatory decision for purposes of Appellate Rule 602(a)(2). See Kollodge v. State, 757 P.2d 1028, 1033 (Alaska 1988); Ballard v. Stich, 628 P.2d 918, 920 (Alaska 1981). Finally, the bifurcation of administrative functions along the legislative/adjudicative facts distinction is recognized in both federal and other state courts. [8] The formal grievance complaint filed by both McGrath and Mohr does not explicitly distinguish between legislative facts and administrative facts. The grievance complaint alleges [i]nappropriate placement of former community college faculty in rank... . Inappropriate denial of tenure for certain former community college faculty... . Discriminatory treatment by UA administration against grievants. Upon remand, it will be left to the parties and the grievance council to identify any claims of McGrath and Mohr involving legislative facts, as such issues are not controlled by the adjudicative provisions of the APA.