BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS v DEPT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14886 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 MONTANA STATE BOARD OF PERSONNEL APPEALS, HUGH V. LARSON, Petitioners and Appellants, MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAY, RON RICHARDS, DIRECTOR; MONTANA HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Respondents and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Twelfth Judicial District, In and for the County of Hill Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Kuhr, Dugdale, Warner Weber, B O S C ~ , Montana John Warner argued, Havre, Montana & Martin, Havre, For Respondents: Jack A. Holstrom argued, Highway Legal Dept., Helena, Montana For Amicus Curiae: James Gardner, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: $ !: -, a. . ( February 28, 1980 fflfi'l 2 jg$fi J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court Mr. . Hugh Larson a p p e a l s from a n o r d e r of t h e H i l l County D i s t r i c t C o u r t which d e t e r m i n e d a s a m a t t e r of l a w t h a t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l ' s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Highway Department u n f a i r l y d e n i e d him promotion f o r t h e Conrad sectionman p o s i t i o n . Larson a l s o a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r i n s o f a r as i t d e n i e s payment of h i s a t t o r n e y f e e s . L a r s o n ' s g r i e v a n c e c o n c e r n s t h e f a i l u r e o f t h e Montana Highway Department (Department) t o promote him t o t h e p o s i t i o n of sectionman f o r t h e Conrad area. The Conrad s e c t i o n - man p o s i t i o n was c r e a t e d i n l a t e summer o r e a r l y f a l l of 1977 a s a r e s u l t o f t h e 1977 L e g i s l a t u r e ' s t r a n s f e r of a s e c t i o n o f highway between Dupuyer and Conrad t o t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of t h e Highway Department. The Chief of t h e Main- t e n a n c e Bureau, J o s e p h Timmons, s e n t a p e r s o n n e l r e q u i s i t i o n f o r t h e new p o s i t i o n t o t h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r of Maintenance, Donald G r u e l . G r u e l i n t u r n forwarded t h e r e q u i s i t i o n t o LeRoy Broughton, t h e P e r s o n n e l D i r e c t o r , who p o s t e d n o t i c e o f t h e job opening on October 1 4 , 1977. Three men, Hugh L a r s o n , Leonard Nygaard, and C h e s t e r Sanders applied f o r t h e p o s i t i o n . Nygaard d i d n o t p r o p e r l y f o l l o w t h e a p p l i c a t i o n p r o c e d u r e s and was n o t s e r i o u s l y considered. Chester Sanders, t h e brother-in-law of P e r s o n n e l D i r e c t o r Broughton, d i d n o t have a s much s e n i o r i t y o r exp e r i e n c e o p e r a t i n g highway equipment a s Larson. However, Larson w a s i n v o l v e d i n t h r e e i n c i d e n t s of q u e s t i o n a b l e c o n d u c t which r e f l e c t e d on h i s r e l i a b i l i t y a s a n employee. Two o r t h r e e summers p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e examiner, L a r s o n , and two o t h e r employees went t o Big Sandy d u r i n g l u n c h f o r some b e e r . T h e i r work s t r i p i n g t h e highways t h a t a f t e r n o o n w a s h i g h l y e r r a t i c . The second i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d i n September 1972 a t Browning, when L a r s o n took a day o f f t o go h u n t i n g . Although Larson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he r e c e i v e d p e r m i s s i o n t o b e away from work, t h e r e w a s o t h e r t e s t i m o n y t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t L a r s o n ' s immediate s u p e r v i s o r r e c e i v e d no n o t i c e t h a t Larson would b e gone and t h a t L a r s o n ' s a b s e n c e c a u s e d a d e l a y i n s t r i p i n g t h e highway. The f i n a l i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d a t Chinook when t h e p a i n t machine o p e r a t e d i m p r o p e r l y and blew p a i n t o v e r t h e r o a d . Larson made numerous a t t e m p t s t o g e t t h e machine t o o p e r a t e properly, b u t each a d d i t i o n a l e f f o r t r e s u l t e d i n an e r r a t i c s p r a y i n g o f p a i n t on t h e highway. S a n d e r s , on t h e o t h e r hand, h a s no r e c o r d of m i s c o n d u c t i n h i s personnel f i l e . Two of S a n d e r s ' f e l l o w employees t e s t i f i e d a t t h e h e a r i n g on L a r s o n ' s g r i e v a n c e t h a t S a n d e r s d r a n k on t h e job and t h a t on one o c c a s i o n h e f e l l a s l e e p w h i l e o p e r a t i n g a p i e c e of highway machinery. However, no r e p o r t o f t h i s misconduct w a s e v e r g i v e n t o management. On November 2 , 1977, f i v e d a y s a f t e r t h e c l o s i n g of b i d s f o r t h e o p e n i n g , Donald G r u e l s e l e c t e d S a n d e r s f o r t h e new p o s i t i o n . About two weeks l a t e r , Larson f i l e d a g r i e v - a n c e p r o t e s t i n g t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s s e l e c t i o n of S a n d e r s a s t h e new sectionman. The Board o f P e r s o n n e l Appeals ("BPA") conducted a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n of t h e matters s t a t e d i n t h e g r i e v a n c e , and on F e b r u a r y 22, 1978, t h e h e a r i n g s examiner conducted a h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . The examiner i s s u e d a recommended o r d e r i n which h e found t h a t h i r i n g of new Department employees was governed by ~ r t i c l e of a n a g r e e 7 ment between t h e Department and t h e u n i o n (AFSCME) which provided t h a t ". . . [Elxperience, q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , c a p a b i l i t i e s , and l e n g t h o f s e r v i c e s h a l l b e f a c t o r s f o r awarding advancements." H e concluded t h a t t h e " d e p a r t m e n t was n o t a c t i n g i n good f a i t h i n awarding t h e advancement t o M r . Mr. Sanders over Larson" and t h a t " t h e d e p a r t m e n t v i o l a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t between AFSCME and i t s e l f by n o t a p p l y i n g t h e mandated c r i t e r i a i n awarding advancements . . ." The e x a m i n e r ' s recommended o r d e r awarded Larson w i t h t h e sectionman p o s i t i o n and backpay between h i s c u r r e n t r a t e of pay and t h a t of a g r a d e 1 3 , s t e p 1 from November 2 , 1977, t o t h e d a t e t h e o r d e r i s implemented. The Highway Department f i l e d e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e e x a m i n e r ' s recommended o r d e r . The BPA d e n i e d t h e e x c e p t i o n s and a d o p t e d adopted t h e t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, andhecommended o r d e r of t h e examiner a s i t s f i n a l o r d e r . The BPA and Larson p e t i t i o n e d t h e H i l l County D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r e n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e BPA's f i n a l o r d e r . The D i s - t r i c t C o u r t , however, found t h a t t h e r e c o r d a s a whole d i d n o t s u p p o r t t h e BPA1s f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t a c t i n good f a i t h and v i o l a t e d t h e t e r m s of i t s agreement w i t h t h e u n i o n , and t h a t t h e o r d e r w a s i n v a l i d and u n e n f o r c e able. Larson a p p e a l s t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l of e n f o r c e - ment o f t h e BPA o r d e r . The BPA h a s f i l e d a n amicus c u r i a e b r i e f i n support of Larson's appeal. Larson and t h e BPA a r g u e t h a t t h e BPA h a s t h e a u t h o r i t y t o award t h e promotion t o Larson i f i t f i n d s Larson i s more q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e opening b e c a u s e h e h a s more s e n i o r i t y . The BPA found t h a t t h e Department s h o u l d have g i v e n g r e a t e r w e i g h t t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s ' s e n i o r i t y and t h a t Larson w a s e n t i t l e d t o t h e promotion b e c a u s e h e had more e x p e r i e n c e on r o a d machinery and more s e n i o r i t y t h a n S a n d e r s . The Depart- ment, however, is not required to favor senior employees for promotion. The union contract governing the Department's promotion of its employees provides that advancements shall be made on the basis of the applicant's experience, qualifications, capabilities, and length of service. The contract does not require the Department to give greater weight to seniority than the other factors. Donald Gruel was aware that Larson had more seniority than the other applicants, but he relied heavily on the opinion of Joseph Timmons, the Chief of Maintenance. Although Timmons made no formal recommenda- tion, he informed Gruel that he thought Sanders was a better man for the job than Larson. The BPA placed greater weight on Larson's experience with road machinery than the Department. However, Larson's edge in experience in this category is somewhat misleading. Sanders also has had considerable experience at jobs above his present grade level, and in fact had over 300 hours experience operating complicated machinery. Furthermore, at the sectionman level, Sanders had 132 hours experience while Larson had none. The BPA also found fault with the Department's assessment of Larson's misconduct and concluded that the Department judged the misconduct serious enough to exclude Larson from consideration for the opening. support BPA's conclusion. There is no evidence to Nor can we say the Department lacked the discretion to determine Sanders was the better man for the job because his work record indicated he was more reliable. In sum, we conclude the BPA made an independent judgment as to which man was more qualified for the job rather t h a n d e t e r m i n i n g whether t h e Department abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n s e l e c t i n g Sanders. The r e c o r d a s a whole s u p p o r t s t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e Department f o l l o w e d t h e c o n t r a c t g u i d e l i n e s f o r promotion of i t s employees. L a r s o n ' s second c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s s e l e c t i o n of S a n d e r s was b i a s e d . The BPA i n i t s c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w s t a t e d t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t a c t i n good f a i t h . I t based t h i s c o n c l u s i o n on i t s f i n d i n g s t h a t Larson w a s more q u a l i f i e d f o r t h e job, and t h a t t h e Department d i d n o t u s e e x p e r i e n c e , q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , c a p a b i l i t i e s , and l e n g t h of s e r v i c e t o award advancement. Along t h i s l i n e , i t s t a t e d t h a t G r u e l w a s u n u s u a l l y vague i n h i s tc?stimony c o n c e r n i n g Sanders' s e l e c t i o n . The BPA found t h a t G r u e l had r e l i e d on S a n d e r s ' p r e v i o u s employment r e c o r d , b u t t h a t h i s employment record d i d not support t h i s reliance. The BPA a l s o found G r u e l ' s f a i l u r e t o r e a d a l e t t e r of recommendation s u b m i t t e d on b e h a l f of Larson w a s s u s p i c i o u s . The c e n t r a l p o i n t of t h e BPA's a n a l y s i s i s , however, contained i n t h e following findings: "Where i t i s u n r e f u t e d by t h e highway d e p a r t m e n t t h a t t h e p r a c t i c e of promoting a man w i t h more s e n i o r i t y t o t h e s e c t i o n man p o s i t i o n h a s always been f o l l o w e d and where t h e r e h a s been no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r n o t following t h a t p a s t pract i c e , t h e a c t i o n of t h e highway becomes s u s p e c t . But where t h e b r o t h e r - i n - l a w o f t h e a d m i n i s t r a t o r o f t h e p e r s o n n e l d i v i s i o n of t h e d e p a r t m e n t o f highways i s t h e f i r s t i n d i v i d u a l t o g e t a promotion o v e r a n employee w i t h more s e n i o r i t y , t h e a c t i o n becomes h i g h l y s u s p e c t . " Simply s t a t e d , t h e r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u p p o r t t h e s e f i n d i n g s . R a t h e r t h a n g o i n g i n t o a d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of e a c h o f t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s d i s c u s s e d by t h e BPA, l e t i t s i m p l y b e s a i d t h a t t h e r e a r e no h a r d f a c t s i n s u p p o r t of t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t nepotism o c c u r r e d h e r e . brother-in-law LeRoy Broughton i s t h e of Sanders, b u t Broughton's p o s i t i o n as personnel administrator i s purely a c l e r i c a l position. He h a s no a u t h o r i t y t o award t h e advancement h e r e . Further- more, t h e BPA's c o n c l u s i o n t h a t s e n i o r highway employees have always been p r e f e r r e d f o r promotions w i t h i n t h e Department h a s no e v i d e n t i a r y f o u n d a t i o n . The o t h e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s r a i s e d by t h e BPA s u g g e s t t h a t G r u e l d i d n o t c o n d u c t a thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Even assuming a less t h a n t h o r o u g h i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h i s f a c t d o e s n o t by i t s e l f t r a n s l a t e i n t o bad f a i t h c o n d u c t . There must b e more, and more i s n o t shown i n t h e r e c o r d before us. There i s no need t o d i s c u s s t h e i s s u e of a t t o r n e y f e e s i n l i g h t o f o u r d e c i s i o n upholding t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n r e v e r s i n g t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals. The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . I - / ( i . ,' . /U/ &-s[u- 1 ' I , ' , f, > J u s t i c e "I/ W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e I . . n o r a b l e L. C. Gulbrandson, D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . J u s t i c e Sheehy i Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e .

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.