YOUNG v CITY OF GREAT FALLS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 80-367 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA I N THE MATTER OF UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE: BRUCE YOUNG BY CONSTRUCTION AND GENERAL LABORERS' LOCAL NO. 1 3 3 4 A F L - C I O , R e s p o n d e n t and C o m p l a i n a n t , vs. C I T Y O F GREAT F A L L S , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of C a s c a d e . H o n o r a b l e J o e l G. R o t h , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For A p p e l l a n t : D a v i d V. G l i k o , C i t y A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Manthna F o r Respondent: Hon. Mike Greely, A t t o r n e y General, Helena, Montana s , Z ~ ~ S I ~ F X ,-Ye-n+a* P a t r i c k M c K i t t r i c k argued, G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a -Jarner--&?l D. - - Submitted: Decided: Filed: A!!G 2 9 1981 Y d Clerk June 1 8 , 1 9 8 1 August 20, 1981 J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w s a n o r d e r and judgment of t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, denying a motion t o amend and d i s m i s s i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of a d e c i s i o n and o r d e r of t h e S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals. On J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1979, r e s p o n d e n t , C o n s t r u c t i o n and G e n e r a l L a b o r e r s ' Union L o c a l No. 1334, AFL-CIO, f i l e d an u n f a i r l a b o r p r a c t i c e c h a r g e w i t h t h e Montana S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals. T h i s c h a r g e was f i l e d on b e h a l f of Bruce Young a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t , C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s . Appellant answered and d e n i e d t h e c h a r g e , whereupon a h e a r i n g was h e l d by a n examiner f o r t h e Board. Following t h e h e a r i n g , t h e examiner on October 1 2 , 1979, i s s u e d 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 and a recommended o r d e r , c o n f i r m i n g i n p a r t the u n f a i r labor p r a c t i c e charge. A p p e l l a n t f i l e d e x c e p t i o n s and o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e d e c i s i o n r e n d e r e d by t h e h e a r i n g s examiner. A review hearing w a s t h e n h e l d and t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals confirmed t h e recommended o r d e r . A f i n a l o r d e r w a s i s s u e d by t h e Board on F e b r u a r y 2 1 , 1980. On March 21, 1980, a p p e l l a n t 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 . S e r v i c e of t h e p e t i t i o n and a summons was acknowledged by Young, t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e of Montana and t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals. A p p e l l a n t , however, d i d n o t i n c l u d e t h e Board a s a named p a r t y on t h e p e t i t i o n . Respondent, on A p r i l 2 1 , 1980, moved t o d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o name t h e Board a s a p a r t y w i t h i n t h e 30-day l i m i t a t i o n p r o v i d e d f o r i n s e c t i o n 2-4-702, MCA. On A p r i l 30, 1980, a p p e l l a n t moved t o amend i t s p e t i t i o n t o add t h e Board a s a p a r t y . A h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r w a s h e l d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t on J u l y 2 4 , 1980. On J u l y 29, 1980, t h e c o u r t i s s u e d a memorandum d e c i s i o n and o r d e r , denying a p p e l l a n t ' s motion t o amend t h e p e t i t i o n and g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t ' s motion t o d i s m i s s . Judgment was s o e n t e r e d , and t h e C i t y of G r e a t F a l l s now 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 whether t h e S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals i s r e q u i r e d t o be d e s i g n a t e d a s a p a r t y on a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review. W e hold t h a t the S t a t e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o be made a party . S e c t i o n 2-4-702, MCA, governs j u d i c i a l review proceedings under t h e 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 , i n c l u d i n g r e v i e w of d e c i s i o n s by t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals. That s t a t u t e , i n p a r t , provides a s follows: " ( 2 ) (a) Proceedings f o r review s h a l l be i n s t i t u t e d by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h i n 30 d a y s a f t e r s e r v i c e of t h e f i n a l d e c i s i o n of t h e agency o r , i f a h e a r i n g i s r e q u e s t e d , w i t h i n 30 days a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n thereon. Except a s o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by s t a t u t e , t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be f i l e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r t h e c o u n t y where t h e p e t i t i o n e r r e s i d e s o r h a s h i s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s o r where t h e agency m a i n t a i n s i t s p r i n c i pal office. Copies of t h e p e t i t i o n s h a l l be promptly s e r v e d upon t h e agency and a l l p a r t i e s of record. " The o n l y b a s i s f o r d i s m i s s i n g t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w i s t h e c l a i m by r e s p o n d e n t t h a t t h e Board i s a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y w i t h i n t h e purview of Rule 1 9 , M.R.Civ.P. I n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , Rule 19 p r o v i d e s : "A p e r s o n who i s s u b j e c t t o s e r v i c e of p r o c e s s s h a l l b e j o i n e d a s a p a r t y i n t h e a c t i o n i f (1) i n h i s a b s e n c e complete r e l i e f c a n n o t be a c c o r d e d among t h o s e a l r e a d y p a r t i e s , o r ( 2 ) he c l a i m s a n i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g t o t h e s u b j e c t of t h e a c t i o n and i s s o s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e a c t i o n i n h i s a b s e n c e may ( i )a s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede h i s a b i l i t y t o p r o t e c t t h a t i n t e r e s t o r ( i i )l e a v e any of t h e p e r s o n s a l r e a d y p a r t i e s s u b j e c t t o a s u b s t a n t i a l r i s k of i n c u r r i n g d o u b l e , multiple, o r otherwise i n c o n s i s t e n t obligations by r e a s o n of h i s c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t : . . ." T h e r e i s some s u p p o r t f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency must b e j o i n e d under Rule 1 9 , M.R.Civ.P. S e e Smith v. County of E l Paso ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 4 2 Colo.App. P.2d 979; C i v i l S e r v . Com'n o f C . o f Denver v . D i s t r i c t & C. C o u r t ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 186 Colo. 308, 527 P.2d 316, 593 531. d o e s n o t , by i t s W e b e l i e v e t h a t Rule 1 9 , M.R.Civ.P., t e r m s , c o n t e m p l a t e i n c l u s i o n of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d a s a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y f o r p u r p o s e s of j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . Where t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s i n t e n d e d f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o d i e s t o b e made p a r t i e s , t h e y have s p e c i f i c a l l y s o p r o v i d e d . example, s e c t i o n 39-51-2410, MCA, For providing f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f a d e c i s i o n by t h e Board of Labor A p p e a l s , p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e Employment S e c u r i t y D i v i s i o n s h a l l b e deemed t o b e a p a r t y i n any a c t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . l e g i s l a t u r e e n a c t e d 2-4-702, MCA, Yet when t h e no p r o v i s i o n was made f o r naming t h e " b o a r d " a s a p a r t y f o r p u r p o s e s o f review. Our c o u r t e n c o u r a g e s a l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of p r o c e d u r a l r u l e s g o v e r n i n g j u d i c i a l r e v i e w of a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e b o a r d . F.W. Mont. Woolworth Co., , I n c . v . Employment S e c . Div. 627 P.2d 851, 38 St.Rep. 694. (1981), - Justice is best s e r v e d by a v o i d i n g a n o v e r - t e c h n i c a l a p p r o a c h and a l l o w i n g t h e p a r t i e s t o have t h e i r d a y i n c o u r t . W h o l d t h a t t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals need n o t be e a p a r t y t o proceedings f o r j u d i c i a l review. Accordingly, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r and judgment i s r e v e r s e d , and t h e c a s e remanded f o r p r o c e e d i n g s i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e Justices Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . D a l y d i s s e n t i n g : W dissent. e I t is t r u e t h e s t a t u t e does n o t s p e c i f y whether the i s r e q u i r e d t o be named a s a p a r t y i n t h e p e t i t i o n agency f o r r e v i e w and d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o make t h e a g e n c y ' s j o i n d e r mandatory or limitation however, the on filing action days. nature. petition for thirty-day A judicial review, in this See Smith v. ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 186 Colo. pointed Administrative review of perfected within the r e g a r d must required include the under County o f E l P a s o ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 316, 593 P.2d 979; C i v i l S e r v i c e Commission v . D i s t r i c t Court be be o f a l l p a r t i e s r e q u i r e d t o be j o i n e d R u l e 1 9 , M.R.Civ.P. 42 Colo.App. must Perfection c o r r e c t joinder should a in h a s been i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t any c h a l l e n g e t o agency thirty jurisdictional out that Procedure agency a c t i o n R u l e 1 0 6 , C.R.C.P., Colorado Act in under 308, but 527 P.2d has not provided its r u l e s of for 531. (It adopted the a judicial civil procedure, which t h e a b o v e - c i t e d c a s e s were decided. ) I f t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n is a c c e p t e d by t h e C o u r t , t h e n a proper joinder o f t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s o r a g e n c i e s deemed t o be e s s e n t i a l or i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s t o t h e p e t i t i o n , under Rule 19, R.R.Civ.P., must be considered a jurisdictional r e q u i r e m e n t t o b e s a t i s f i e d i f d i s m i s s a l i s t o be a v o i d e d . R u l e 1 9 , M.R.Civ.P., provides i n pertinent part: "A p e r s o n who i s s u b j e c t t o s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s s h a l l be j o i n e d a s a p a r t y i n t h e a c t i o n i f (1) i n h i s a b s e n c e c o m p l e t e r e l i e f c a n n o t b e a c c o r d e d among t h o s e a l r e a d y parties, or ( 2 ) he c l a i m s an i n t e r e s t r e l a t i n g t o t h e s u b j e c t of t h e a c t i o n and i s s o s i t u a t e d t h a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e a c t i o n i n h i s a b s e n c e may ( i ) a s a p r a c t i c a l m a t t e r i m p a i r o r impede h i s a b i l i t y t o protect that interest . . ." Here, a p p e l l a n t is a t t e m p t i n g t o c h a l l e n g e a d e c i s i o n and o r d e r o f t h e Board o f P e r s o n n e l A p p e a l s , i s s u e d i n f u r therance of its duty a s a quasi-judicial t h e p u b l i c p o l i c y of body t o a d m i n i s t e r t h i s S t a t e a s set f o r t h i n T i t l e 39, Chap. 3 1 , MCA ( C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g f o r P u b l i c E m p l o y e e s ) . I n f u n c t i o n i n g t o promote and a d v a n c e t h i s p u b l i c p o l i c y , t h e Board h a s a d e f i n i t e i n t e r e s t i n t h e p e t i t i o n t o r e v i e w and, as a practical matter, must be joined to insure a c o m p l e t e and j u s t a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h a t i n t e r e s t . The majority, of course, disagrees c o n c l u s i o n and a s s e r t s t h a t t h e Board interpretation, and that this i s , by some l i b e r a l e x c l u d e d from t h e i r review h e a r i n g i n c o u r t "justice is best served by avoiding t e c h n i c a l a p p r o a c h and a l l o w i n g t h e p a r t i e s day i n c o u r t . " with an over- t o have t h e i r W do n o t u n d e r s t a n d how you g i v e p a r t i e s e t h e i r d a y i n c o u r t by e x c l u d i n g them. I suppose it depends o n whose ox i s b e i n g g o r e d . What t h e m a j o r i t y f a i l s t o r e a l i z e , h o w e v e r , is t h a t i n t h i s c a s e a j o i n d e r of a l l e s s e n t i a l p a r t i e s w i t h i n t h e thirty-day requirement. if a party proceeding, limitation period A s a consequence of is deemed is a j u r i s d ------ a l iction its jur i d i c t i o n a l nature, essential or necessary to the t h a t p a r t y a u t o m a t i c a l l y becomes i n d i s p e n s a b l e . T h i s i n no way d e p e n d s on a l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n o r o t h e r s e l f - s e r v i n g j i n g o i s m s r e l i e d upon by t h e m a j o r i t y . Those e s s e n t i a l j u r i s d i c t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o p e r f e c t a p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w m u s t be s a t i s f i e d t o v e s t a u t h o r i t y i n t h e reviewing o r a p p e l l a t e t r i b u n a l . A failure t o s a t i s f y t h e s e r e q u i r e m e n t s t h u s l e a v e s t h e c o u r t w i t h no a d j u d i c a t o r y o r r e v i e w i n g power; no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o a c t ; and no discretion to remedy or waive the jurisdictional defects. Here, appellant appears to have failed to vest the District Court with jurisdiction to consider the petition for review. If this is the case, then the court was unable to entertain appellant's motion to amend and was left with no alternative but to dismiss the action. We would affirm the We concur in the foregoing dissent: VL-Q-J, Chief Justice

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.