Opinion ID: 433019
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: retention of civil service rights

Text: 12 Appellants claim that sections 204(g) and 713(d) of the Home Rule Act entitle them to continuing status as federal competitive service employees. 18 Section 204 created a local agency providing the District of Columbia with its own public employment service. Subsection (g) specifies that employees transferred pursuant to this section shall retain the competitive service rights they held prior to the transfer. 19 Section 713 is concerned with the transfer of personnel, property, and funds. Subsection (d) provides that employees being transferred shall not by reason of the transfer be deprived of the civil service rights, benefits, and privileges they held prior to the transfer. In addition, section 422(3) states that the new District of Columbia personnel system shall provide to the employees benefits at least equal to those which they enjoyed immediately prior to the enactment of the new system. 20 The legislative history of the Home Rule Act as well as the statutory language and history, however, indicate that appellants are not entitled to the relief they seek. 13
14 In 1970, Congress established the Nelson Commission to study the organization of the government of the District of Columbia. 21 Its report, issued in August, 1972, recommended the transfer of various federal agencies to the District government along with a transfer of those purely local functions of the District of Columbia Manpower Administration. 22 The Commission explained: 15 DCMA carries out programs and activities which are normally state and local functions. A general principle of organization adopted by the Commission is that programs which are predominantly for the benefit of District citizens should be an integral part of the District Government, so that the District can exercise the necessary leadership and assure coordination of basic services. 23 16 Recommendations were also made with respect to the District's personnel administration. The Commission found that the District's personnel management lacks unity and firm central direction. At least 14 classification and/or pay systems and 6 retirement systems are in effect.... 24 It called for the creation of a new District personnel and management system, largely municipal in character and covering as many District employees as possible. 25 The following year, Congress began work on what became the Home Rule Act. 26 17 Congress ultimately agreed with the Nelson Commission that the District should have an autonomous personnel system. It required, however, that the local District Government rather than the Congress devise the new system. 27 It intended that [t]he local Council, not the Congress, would be required to settle pay and labor disputes.... 28 It is against this legislative backdrop that we construe sections 204(g), 713(d), and 422(3) of the Home Rule Act. 18
19 No question exists that the former DOL employees were to retain their competitive service benefits until such time as the District of Columbia implemented its own personnel system. The summary of the Home Rule Act prepared by the Committee on the District of Columbia explains: 20 [T]he Act clarifies and guarantees that an employee will not lose his civil service rights, such as leave, salary, retirement, veteran's preference, promotion status, etc., during the transfer period, .... 29 21 Nothing in the legislative history, however, states that these rights were to continue after the transition period. To read the absence of an express time limit on these rights as a continuing grant of federal benefits is to read too much into statutory silence. 22 The legislative history of section 713(d) reinforces the conclusion that these were merely interim rights. In explaining what rights, benefits, and privileges transferred employees would enjoy, Congressman Brock Adams, one of the Home Rule Act's architects, stated that the grant of continued federal rights 23 cannot be changed ... unless we put together and pass a new complete personnel system which would of course supersede this.... That gets us up through keeping the government intact until the new government comes in. 30 24 This new personnel system is, of course, now in effect. With its enactment, section 713(d) ceased to apply to the transferred employees. 31 25 Parts of the statute do appear somewhat ambiguous on their face. When the statute is read in its entirety together with relevant portions of the legislative history, however, the congressional intent is clear. One of the major objectives in the Home Rule Act was to reorganize a fragmented local government in an efficient manner. It sought to create a unitary, more autonomous system, not to continue various parallel systems. Congress did intend to provide interim protection by assuring that the existing federal system of benefits would continue until the District government had developed an adequate alternative. Once the District system was in place, these protections became unnecessary. If maintained, they would have frustrated the congressional purpose of creating a single, autonomous personnel system. With the establishment of the new system, the former federal DOL employees became District employees subject to the new District personnel scheme. They did not retain their federal status nor continue to be entitled to civil service rights. Appellants are now completely integrated into the District of Columbia personnel system. 32