Opinion ID: 1767626
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: transfer or layoff

Text: Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-26, reads as follows: In accordance with the rules, an appointing authority may lay off an employee in the classified service whenever he deems it necessary by reason of shortage of work or funds or the abolition of a position or other material change in duties or organization. The seniority and service ratings of employees shall be considered, in such manner as the rules shall provide, among the factors in determining the order of layoffs. The appointing authority shall give written notice to the director of every proposed layoff a reasonable time before the effective date thereof, and the director shall make such orders relating thereto as he considers necessary to secure compliance with the rules. The name of every regular employee so laid off shall be placed on the appropriate reemployment list. (Acts 1939, No. 58, p. 68; Code 1940, T. 55, § 314). (Emphasis added.). Sullivan contends, contrary to findings by the trial court, that the action of the board constituted a lay-off, rather than a transfer, and consequently that the procedures of Ala.Code 1975, § 36-26-26, should have been followed. [1] We disagree. Mr. John Reynolds, Deputy Director of the State Personnel Department, and a member of that department for over 36 years, was qualified as an expert by Sullivan before the trial court. Reynolds was asked whether, in his opinion, Sullivan was laid off or transferred. Reynolds replied in pertinent part: Q. All right, sir. Did Mr. Slate come to see you regarding a layoff at the Rehabilitation Division? A. I assume that he did because he was faced ... the Department of Education was faced with one. Q. All right. And did you give him any advice as to whether he ought to lay off people or take some other action? A. I don't think at the first visit, but the second visitor I may have called someone Dr. Teague or someone in the State Department. At the same time Rehab was speaking of laying off nineteen, I believe it was, Rehab couselors for funding reasons, D.D.U. was asking for additional employees, and I told Dr. Teague or his representative that I thought it would be cruel to be laying off nineteen professionally qualified career people and then at the same time in the same department employing like people to like, similar work, and he agreed. I don't think the public would think that it looked good or would accept such. Q. And under the rules that you have been familiar with for thirty-six years, these transfers were Okay? A. Sure. Q. And the Personnel Department approved these transfers? A. We recommended it rather than laying off people. .... Q. It has been alleged in the complaint filed with the court that this transfer was in reality a layoff. Do you have a judgment about the accuracy of that allegation? Was that a layoff? A. Not in my opinion. Nobody was terminated. Mr. Royce Slate, Supervisor of Personnel Services at the Division of Rehabilitation and Crippled Children's Services, testified to the same effect: that it was never the intent of the personnel board to lay off anyone. At the risk of oversimplification, we feel that because, as stated by Mr. Reynolds, Nobody was terminated, Sullivan's argument that he was laid off is totally without merit. Likewise, the trial court did not err in failing to apply the standards of Code 1975, § 36-26-26, to Sullivan's situation.