Opinion ID: 1767626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sullivan's transfer to a different class

Text: Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-24, states the following: An appointing authority may, at any time, assign a classified employee under his jurisdiction from one position to another in the same class. Any classified employee may be transferred from one department to another in the same class; provided, that the director shall have authorized the transfer and shall have received the approval of both appointing authorities concerned. In every case involving transfer, the appointing authority shall submit a written request to the director. (Acts 1939, No. 58, p. 68; Code 1940, T. 55, § 312.) (Emphasis added.) Sullivan submits that his transfer was not within the same class, and thus was contrary to Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-24. The crux of this contention is that any transfer should have been to another position in an identical class. The trial court found, and we agree, that Code 1975, § 36-26-24, permits an appointing authority to transfer employees to comparable classes. Accordingly, Sullivan's transfer was in accordance with the provisions of the laws governing the state merit system. The rules of the State Personnel Department have the force and effect of law. Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-9. These rules define class in the following manner: 20. `Class' or `class of positions' means a definitely recognized kind of employment in the classified service designed to embrace all positions that are sufficiently alike with respect to the character of duties, responsibilities, consequent qualification requirements, as to be treated alike under like conditions for all personnel purposes. Mr. John Reynolds, mentioned earlier, helped compose the rules and regulations of the personnel department. Reynolds, when asked about the above definition of class, responded: Q. And that defines class as sufficiently alike? A. Yes. Q. It defines class in terms of comparability does it not? A. That's my interpretation of it. Reynolds further testified that the above definition of class, embracing the concept of comparability, has been adopted by the State Personnel Board. When asked what a determination that same class meant identical class would have on the state personnel system, Reynolds replied: A. It would have a devastating effect on the employees because down through the ages we have been able to avoid termination because of the ability to transfer employees from one agency to another in comparable classes. Black's Law Dictionary 1203 (rev. 5th ed. 1979), defines the term same as follows: SAME. Identical, equal, equivalent. The word `same', however, does not always mean `identical.' It frequently means of the kind or species, not the specific thing. When preceded by the definite article, means the one just referred to. See In re Conner's Estate, 318 Pa. 150, 178 A. 15, 17 (1935), and Crapo v. Brown, 40 Iowa 487, 493 (1875). We agree with the trial court that restricting the definition of the term same class to that suggested by Sullivan (i.e., identical class) would serve to retard the purpose and spirit of the Merit System Actthat of fostering efficiency within the state personnel system, while attracting officers and employees of a high character and quality. Consequently, we hold the term same class as used in Code 1975, § 36-26-24, to encompass the term comparable class. For a recent case dealing with the authority of the Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Pensions and Security to transfer employees from the state level to county levels, pursuant to Code 1975, § 38-2-6, see Williams v. James, 420 So.2d 773 (Ala.1982). The trial court did not err in its interpretation and application of § 36-26-24 and § 36-26-26. AFFIRMED. TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.