Burr and Clark v. DoC

Burr and Clark v. DoC

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Craig Burr and Lowell Clark,

Petitioners,

v.

Department of Corrections and Career Service Review Board,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040162-CA
 

F I L E D
(April 14, 2005)
 

2005 UT App 171

 

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Phillip W. Dyer and Carey A. Seager, Salt Lake City, for Petitioners

Mark L. Shurtleff and Brent A. Burnett, Salt Lake City, for Respondents

-----

Before Judges Billings, Davis, and Greenwood.

GREENWOOD, Judge:

    Petitioners Craig Burr and Lowell Clark appeal the Utah Career Service Review Board's (the CSRB) denial of their salary grievance, citing the CSRB's misinterpretation of statute and abuse of discretion.(1) We affirm.

    First, Petitioners implicitly argue that the CSRB misinterpreted the required showing for an administrative salary increase (ASI). "[A] state agency's interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, which this court reviews for correctness." Lunnen v. Utah Dep't of Transp., 886 P.2d 70, 72 (Utah Ct. App. 1994). "[O]ur primary goal in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the legislative intent, as evidenced by the plain language, in light of the purpose the statute was meant to achieve." Foutz v. City of S. Jordan, 2004 UT 75,¶11, 100 P.3d 1171 (alteration in original) (quotations and citation omitted).

    Utah Code section 67-19-12(3)(a) provides that "[t]he director shall prepare, maintain, and revise a position classification plan for each employee position . . . to provide equal pay for equal work." Utah Code Ann. § 67-19-12(3)(a) (2004).(2) The CSRB determined that this section did not "mean that employees who have similar education and experience and who are classified the same because they do the same work, must receive the same salaries." But rather, the CSRB determined that this section meant that employees who do the same work "must have the same salary ranges." We agree with the CSRB. Indeed, such a reading squares with the plain language of the statute, as the statute focuses on the position, not the worker's qualifications. Moreover, "[t]he concept of equal pay for equal work is confined to employees with the same classification." C.C. Patel v. Division of Envtl. Health, 4 CSRB 37 (1991). To rule otherwise would require agencies regularly to sort through, weigh, and recalculate employee status to determine the proper pay scale based only on limited factors. In effect, the pay plan would be beyond the director's discretion, a result incompatible with section 67-19-12(3)(a). See Utah Code Ann. § 67-19-12(3)(a).

    Furthermore, section 67-19-12(3)(b) adds credence to the CSRB's reading, stating that the "[c]lassificaion of positions shall be based upon similarity of duties performed and responsibilities assumed, so that the same job requirements and the same salary range may be applied equitably to each position in the same class." Id. § 67-19-12(3)(b) (2004) (emphases added).

    Lastly, Petitioners argue they are entitled to an ASI based on the wages of comparable employees also working for the Department of Corrections.(3) Petitioners' request for an ASI is governed by rule 477-6-4(10) of the Utah Administrative Code. See Utah Admin. Code R477-6-4(10). Under the terms of that rule, the agency head is given discretion to approve ASIs. See id. As persons bringing a nondisciplinary grievance, Petitioners bore the burden of proving their claim by substantial evidence. See Utah Code Ann. § 67-19a-406(2)(b)-(c) (2004).(4) Accordingly, we will reverse only if the CSRB abused its discretion in finding that Petitioners did not produce substantial evidence that the Department of Corrections violated Utah Code section 67-19-12(3)(a)-(b) by not granting Petitioners' ASI request.

    Petitioners suggest that the CSRB merely cited to the factors that may justify an ASI denial without a specific finding of variation between the Petitioners and their selected comparables. In support of their claim, they cite to a conclusory statement in the CSRB's decision: "The Board finds many of these factors present in the instant case." However, that statement was made after the CSRB analyzed how the parties were different, specifically citing to starting salary, salary at the time of making grade, and differing training and experience.(5) Thus, the CSRB stated valid reasons for sustaining the denial of Petitioners' ASI claims.

    Accordingly, we affirm the CSRB's ruling.

______________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

-----

WE CONCUR:

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

James Z. Davis, Judge

1. Petitioners also assert that "the CSRB erroneously determined that [the Department of Resource Management] is solely responsible to remedy pay inequities." However, as this contention is irrelevant, we decline to address it.

2. Although section 67-19-12 was recently amended, the changes do not affect the case at bar. See Utah Code Ann. § 67-19-12 (2004). Therefore, for ease of reference, we cite to the most recent version.

3. In their reply brief, Petitioners assert that the recent Utah Supreme Court case Buckner v. Kennard, 2004 UT 78, 99 P.3d 842, directs this court to reverse the CSRB's decision. However, the sections Petitioners cite to from Buckner focus on whether there is a private cause of action for pay inequity, and do not apply in the current case. See id. at ¶¶35-54.

4. As this section has not been amended since Petitioners' claim arose, we cite to the most recent version for convenience. See Utah Code Ann. § 67-19a-406 (2004).

5. The CSRB Step 6 decision also listed other differences--cost of living adjustments, merit increases, probationary increases, market compatibility analyses, and promotions--but did so only generally.