Opinion ID: 2632647
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Blackburn Was an At-Will Employee.

Text: The superior court determined that, as a matter of law, Blackburn was an at-will employee whom the state could dismiss without just cause. The contract negotiated between the state and Local 71 provides that the state can discharge permanent employees only for just cause, but does not expressly so provide for probationary employees. [3] Because Blackburn was a probationary employee, the superior court concluded that he was not exempt from what that court said was the legal presumption of at-will employment. [4] Despite Blackburn's claims that the state must apply objective standards to all of its retention decisions and that these standards require that the state discharge its probationary employees only for objective reasons, [5] the court concluded that Blackburn had simply failed to show that he was for any reason exempted from the legal presumption of at-will employment. Blackburn argues on appeal that state probationary employees are distinguishable from private employees because their employment is governed by the merit principle set forth in article XII, section 6 of the Alaska Constitution [6] and the State Personnel Act. [7] He asserts that the merit principle requires that the state only dismiss employees for just cause. Alaska Statute 39.25.010 only specifies that separation for cause is required for permanent employees. [8] The Personnel Rules promulgated by the Director of Personnel also limit just cause protection to permanent employees. [9] The rules entitle probationary employees only to a written statement of the reasons for dismissal; Blackburn received a written statement of reasons. As the state points out, the statutory mandate that employees complete a period of probation [10] would serve no purpose if the state must also show just cause to dismiss probationary employees. Nonetheless, Blackburn contends that the Act and related regulations require performance evaluations of all public employees, including probationary employees, and that these create just cause protection for probationary employees. [11] He points to a personnel rule  2 AAC 07.295  that provides that the Director of the Division of Personnel shall prescribe the nature, form, and frequency of personnel evaluations and may require a personal evaluation at any time during an employee's probationary period. Blackburn argues that the regulation requires evaluations of probationary employees and only gives the director discretion to decide when to conduct the evaluation within the probationary period. A more plausible interpretation is that it authorizes the director to require an evaluation without obligating the director to do so. Likewise, AS 39.25.150(14), which requires the development, maintenance, and use of employee performance records, does not expressly mandate performance evaluations of probationary employees. Absent a statutory mandate to the contrary, the parties to an employment contract may incorporate provisions such as mandatory performance evaluations of probationary employees into the contract. Blackburn argues that Section 18.04 of the CBA provides for performance evaluations by stating: Performance Evaluation Reports will be discussed with an employee by the rater. An employee may, at their option, have a Union representative present during the discussion. An employee who disagrees with a performance evaluation may submit written comments within five (5) working days. The written comments shall be attached to the performance evaluation and become a part of the employee's personnel file. Following the discussion of the performance evaluation with the employee, the evaluation will be signed by the employee and the rater. The signed evaluation, together with any employee comments, shall constitute the evaluation. The employee shall receive a copy of the finalized evaluation. This section of the CBA merely outlines the procedures followed for preparing performance evaluations, however. It does not require the state to prepare performance evaluations of probationary employees. Blackburn also relies on the Department of Transportation Employee Handbook for support. He points to handbook language that requires performance evaluations of all employees. But the handbook provision cited by Blackburn does not apply expressly to probationers, and its terms make it apparent that the reports are designed to evaluate permanent employees on a periodic basis as an integral part of [ ] career development. [12] In the handbook's separate provision governing probationary employees, the probationary period is described as part of the examination process where employees must demonstrate their ability to do the work and adjust to the demands of the position. Employees are warned that they must `pass' this trial period before they can earn permanent status. As we concluded in our discussion of the CBA provisions relating to performance evaluations, the Employee Handbook's provision on this topic does not require the state to prepare performance evaluations of probationary employees. Blackburn also maintains that references to the rater in the CBA establish that preparation of performance evaluation reports under the contract is governed by the Rater's Guide to Performance Evaluations. The Rater's Guide instructs raters to prepare evaluation reports midway through an employee's probationary period and just prior to the completion of the probationary period. It recommends use of performance evaluation results as a guide to personnel actions such as promotion, transfer, retention after probationary period, demotion, and termination. Although this language indicates that performance evaluations of state probationary employees are required, we noted in Witt v. State, Department of Corrections that references to the rater in the performance evaluation provision of the predecessor contract between the state and Local 71 do not refer to the Rater's Guide. [13] Thus, provisions in the Rater's Guide are inapplicable to Blackburn. Finally, Blackburn argues that he was not an at-will employee because he was statutorily entitled to arbitrate his grievance. Although the CBA excludes grievances concerning the termination of probationary employees from arbitration, Blackburn challenges the exclusion's legality under AS 23.40.210(a), which requires that public employers' union contracts provide for grievance procedures that include arbitration. Blackburn asserts that because the statute requires the State as an employer to explain the reasons for its termination decisions and to defend its decisions to an arbitrator under the grievance procedure, the state cannot fire a probationary employee on a mere whim. In Hemmen v. State, Department of Public Safety, we struck down a provision in a public employer's union contract that excluded involuntary transfer grievances from binding arbitration. [14] We held there that the provision violated AS 23.40.210, and stated that the objective of AS 23.40.210 is to ensure that all contracts subject to the statute contain [a binding arbitration] procedure, and that binding arbitration be included as the final step of all grievance procedures. [15] In State v. Public Safety Employees Association, we clarified that section .210 requires arbitration of all grievances concerning mandatory subjects of bargaining. [16] But unions enjoy broad discretion to serve the employees they represent; they may waive employee statutory rights if the waiver is clear and unambiguous. [17] The CBA negotiated by Local 71 and the state clearly and unambiguously waives probationary employees' right to arbitrate a demotion or dismissal. It provides: Any grievance which involves the application or interpretation of the terms of this Agreement or is an appeal from demotion or dismissal of a permanent employee, or an appeal from dismissal of a probationary employee holding permanent status in another classification, which is not settled at Step Three may be submitted to arbitration for settlement. (Emphasis added.) Thus, the agreement explicitly limits the right to arbitrate demotion or dismissal decisions to permanent employees and probationary employees holding permanent employee status in another classification. It unmistakably waives probationary employees' right to arbitrate their termination grievances. Blackburn was therefore not entitled to arbitrate his grievance. We held in Witt that a CBA between the state and Local 71 that had language substantially similar to the CBA applicable to Blackburn permitted the state to dismiss probationary employees at will. [18] Because the contract neither explicitly required performance evaluations nor referred to the Rater's Guide, we concluded that, per the contract's language, a probationary employee was an at-will employee and was not entitled to dismissal only for good cause. [19] Because we find nothing in the state statutes, the state personnel rules, or the CBA that requires the state to apply any kind of objective standard to probationary employee retention decisions, or otherwise indicates that probationary employees are entitled to just cause protection, we affirm the superior court's determination that Blackburn was an at-will employee whom the state could dismiss without just cause. The state's only duty was to provide Blackburn with a written statement of the reasons for his dismissal. [20] The state's February 18, 2000 letter to Blackburn, in which it described Blackburn's inadequate job performance, satisfied that duty.