SELON v BD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-146 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 IN THE MATTER OF THE CLASSIFICATION APPEAL OF T.ED J. SELON, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Petitioner and Appellant, BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS et al., Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis and Clark Honorable Gordon Bennett, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: J. Michael Young and John Bobinski, De~artmentof Administration, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Barry Hjort, Helena, Montana James Gardner, Bd. Personnel Appeals, Helena, Montana Submitted on briefs: Decided : Filed: . Clerk July 2 4 , i4 1981 M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of Court. the The S t a t e D e p a r t m e n t o f A d m i n i s t r a t i o n (DOA) b r o u g h t a n a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f L e w i s and C l a r k County s e e k i n g j u d i c i a l r e v i e w u n d e r t h e Montana A d m i n i s t r a t i v e P r o c e d u r e A c t (IJIAPA) o f a f i n a l o r d e r o f t h e S t a t e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s (BPA) e n t e r e d i n a wage and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a p p e a l f i l e d by Ted J . Selon. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d DOA' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . DOA a p p e a l s . Ted J. S e l o n was employed by t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f Highways as a g e n e r a l o f f ice c l e r k ; and i n 1 9 7 6 , b e l i e v i n g he s h o u l d be p a i d a t a h i g h e r r a t e o f p a y f o r t h e d u t i e s he p e r f o r m e d , he f i l e d a wage and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a p p e a l p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 2-18-1011, MCA. Mr. S e l o n c h o s e t h e Montana P u b l i c Employees A s s o c i a t i o n (MPEA) t o r e p r e s e n t him i n t h e a p p e a l . S e c t i o n 2-18-1011, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t t h a t an employee may f i l e a c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e BPA r e g a r d i n g t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of h i s p o s i t i o n and be h e a r d u n d e r t h e p r o v i s i o n s of a g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e t o be p r e s c r i b e d b y t h e BPA. The BPA h a s p r o m u l g a t e d a n d a d o p t e d a f o u r - s t e p g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e which is s e t f o r t h i n A.R.M. S e c . 24.26.508. Mr. S e l o n l s a p p e a l proceeded t h r o u g h each s t e p of t h e g r i e v a n c e p r o c e d u r e u n t i l it was e v e n t u a l l y f i l e d w i t h t h e BPA a s r e q u i r e d i n s t e p f o u r of t h a t p r o c e d u r e . No a c t i o n w a s t a k e n b y t h e BPA o n t h e a p p e a l u n t i l t h e f a l l of 1 9 7 9 . I n March 1 9 7 9 t h e DOA and MPEA p r e s e n t e d to t h e BPA a c o n s e n t agreement which provided t h a t i n a l l a p p e a l s w h e r e i n t h e e m p l o y e e w a s r e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e MPEA t h e p a r t i e s would p r o c e e d under an a l t e r n a t i v e g r i e v a n c e procedure. The p u r p o s e o f t h e a g r e e m e n t w a s t o e x p e d i t e a p p e a l s b e f o r e t h e BPA. Mr. S e l o n l s a p p e a l w a s p r o c e s s e d b y t h e BPA t h a t f a l l a c c o r d i n g t o t h e terms o f t h e c o n s e n t a g r e e m e n t ; and a s p r o v i d e d t h e r e i n , t h e BPA a p p o i n t e d a n i n v e s t i g a t o r to i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c o n t e n t i o n s o f t h e p a r t i e s and r e n d e r a p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n . On November 1 3 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r m a i l e d t o t h e p a r t i e s h i s p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n t h a t S e l o n ' s p o s i t i o n s h o u l d be r e c l a s s i f i e d t o Grade 11. The DOA r e c e i v e d n o t i c e of h i s d e c i s i o n on November 1 4 , and on December 5 m a i l e d t o t h e BPA i t s e x c e p t i o n s to t h a t decision. A d i s p u t e a r o s e a s t o w h e t h e r t h e e x c e p t i o n s to t h e p r e l i m i - n a r y d e c i s i o n were t i m e l y f i l e d by t h e DOA u n d e r t h e terms of t h e consent agreement. By o r d e r d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1980 , t h e admi- n i s t r a t o r o f t h e BPA r u l e d t h a t t h e D O A 8 s e x c e p t i o n s had n o t b e e n t i m e l y f i l e d and t h a t t h e p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n of t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r was t o s t a n d a s t h e f i n a l o r d e r of t h e BPA. DOA moved t h e BPA t o r e c o n s i d e r i t s o r d e r . and t h e o r d e r o f J a n u a r y 1 0 became f i n a l . On J a n u a r y 1 6 t h e The m o t i o n was d e n i e d T h e r e a f t e r , t h e DOA p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of t h e f i n a l o r d e r u n d e r MAPA. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i s m i s s e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n . The DOA a p p e a l s . The s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s w h e t h e r t h e ~ i s t r i c tC o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r MAPA t o j u d i c i a l l y r e v i e w t h e BPA1s f i n a l order. Under MAPA a p e r s o n who h a s e x h a u s t e d a l l a d m i n i s t r a t i v e r e m e d i e s is e n t i t l e d t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i f he is a g g r i e v e d by a f i n a l decision i n a contested case. A " c o n t e s t e d c a s e " is d e f i n e d a s follows: S e c t i o n 2 - 4 - 7 0 2 ( l ) ( a ) , MCA. i n s e c t i o n 2-4-102(4) , MCA, " ' C o n t e s t e d case1 means any p r o c e e d i n g , b e f o r e a n a g e n c y i n which a d e t e r m i n a t i o n of l e g a l r i g h t s , d u t i e s , o r p r i v i l e g e s o f a p a r t y is r e q u i r e d by l a w to be made a f t e r - o p p o r an t u n i t y f o r h e a r i n g . " (Emphasis added. ) The f i n a l o r d e r of t h e BPA was n o t a f i n a l o r d e r i n a cont e s t e d case. I t was n o t a d e t e r m i n a t i o n made a f t e r a n o p p o r - t u n i t y for a hearing. The BPA d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e D O A ' s e x c e p - t i o n s t o t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r l s p r e l i m i n a r y d e c i s i o n were u n t i m e l y f i l e d ; t h e r e f o r e , t h e DOA was n o t e n t i t l e d to a h e a r i n g u n d e r t h e terms o f t h e a g r e e m e n t which p r o v i d e d t h a t any h e a r i n g would be l i m i t e d i n scope t o the i s s u e s presented i n the f i l e d e x c e p t i o n s . AA J u d i c i a l r e v i e w u n d e r M P i s a p p r o p r i a t e o n l y when t h e r e h a s been an o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a hearing. T h e r e was no o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g i n t h i s case, and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d i s m i s s e d f o r l a c k of j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e DOA's p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review. Af f irmed . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur:

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.