Opinion
C.A. No.: 99A-06-010-FSS
Submitted: April 14, 2000.
Decided: May 25, 2000.
Upon Appellee's Motion to Affirm Merit Employee Relations Board as to Corporal Reginald B. Goldsboro and Corporal Terris Massey- GRANTED
Corporal Terris Massey and Corporal Reginald B. Goldsboro, M.P.C.J.F., P.O. Box 9561, Wilmington, Delaware, 19809. Pro Se Appellants.
Ilona Kirshon, Deputy Attorney General, Carvel State Office Building, 6th Floor, 820 N. French Street, Wilmington, Delaware, 19801. Attorney for Appellees.
ORDER
Appellants, Corporals Terris Massey and Reginald B. Goldsboro, are correctional officers. They appeal a decision of the Merit Employee Relations Board dismissing their grievance appeals. Appellants filed opening briefs, to which the Department of Correction responded with identical motions to affirm. Both Appellants have replied to DOC's motions. Although replies to motions to affirm are not contemplated by the Court's rules, the Court has considered them. The Court addresses both cases together because their issues are identical.
Corporal Irving Young also has filed an appeal, but it appears he has not pursued it seriously. The Court has dismissed Corporal William Parker's appeal for failure to file an opening brief.
I.
In 1998, Appellants filed grievance appeals with the Merit Employee Relations Board alleging that their positions were classified improperly. Massey's grievance, prepared with the assistance of a representative of the Delaware Correctional Officers Association, complained that Massey, a corporal, runs a prison laundry while officers who run other prison laundries are sergeants or lieutenants. Massey requested "the same pay and title. To be made whole." Goldsboro, also a corporal, runs a prison supply room while the supply officers in other prisons have higher paygrades and higher rank. "Cpl. Goldsboro, wishes to make the same pay title. To be made whole."
In rejecting Appellants' appeals, MERB found that Appellants sought not grievance appeals, which MERB could consider, but that each grievance essentially was a complaint about the perceived inequality in paygrade assigned to Appellants' positions. The "grievances" actually were attempts to gain reclassification of Appellants' positions. Reclassification only may occur through a Maintenance Review or through a Critical Reclassification. A Maintenance Review is a general review of merit positions for reclassification, while a Critical Reclassification is the reclassification of a particular position.
As to Critical Reclassification, MERB held that:
The Delaware General Assembly has made it clear in the FY 99 Budget Act that grievances involving critical reclassifications or the determination of paygrade are not within the jurisdiction of the Merit Employee Relations Board.
As to Maintenance Classification, MERB found that:
Maintenance Classification Reviews are within the Board's jurisdiction but in these cases there were no such reviews performed and this Board has previously concluded that the determination of which classifications to select for Maintenance Classification Reviews is a matter within the discretion of the Director of State Personnel. (citation omitted)
Accordingly, MERB concluded that the appeals are beyond its jurisdiction and dismissed them.
MERB, however, found a reasonable basis for further inquiry into the classification of Appellants' positions. MERB therefore ordered that each Appellant be interviewed personally and a review of his position made so that DOC management could take corrective action if inequities existed. Alan Machtinger, DOC's Director of Human Resources and Development, interviewed Appellants. Machtinger found that Massey's position could be submitted for reclassification, but that reclassification would not affect Massey's paygrade. Machtinger found that Goldsboro's position could be submitted for reclassification, but that the more appropriate classification would result in a lower paygrade.
II.
Merit Rule 3.0810 addresses Maintenance Classification Reviews, providing:
[T]he Director [of State Personnel], upon his/her own initiative or at the request of an appointing authority, shall investigate the alleged error in the classification or reclassification of a position and, if found to be justified, shall reclassify the position to the appropriate class, consistent with the requirements of the Budget Act.
Absent a request by DOG, there is no mandate for the Director of State Personnel to reclassify any DOC employee. The Fiscal Year 1999 Budget provides that "Maintenance Review classifications may be appealed to the Merit Employee Relations Board. . . ." There is no right, however, to appeal the refusal to perform a Maintenance Review.
Even had a Maintenance Review occurred, there would be no right of appeal to this Court. The Superior Court has held repeatedly that it lacks jurisdiction over MERB reclassification decisions.
It is clear that the Legislature intended the job classification to end with the decision of the Commission [now MERB]. No jurisdiction has been given to the Superior Court over this matter either by the Administrative Procedures Act or Chapter 59 of Title 29.
See Pitcavage v. Delaware State Personnel Commission, Del. Super., C.A. No. 92A-07-06, Jacobs, V.C. (Mar. 25, 1993); Gedney v. Ting, Del. Super., C.A. No. 89A.-MY-l, Ridgely, P.J. (Dec. 26, 1990); Sheiker v. State Personnel Commission, Del. Super., C.A. No. 89A-JA-2, Steele, J. (July 10, 1989).
Sheiker v. State Personnel Commission, Del. Super., C. A. No. 89A-JA-2, Steele, J. (July 10, 1989).
III.
As to the assignment of a particular paygrade to Appellants' position and Appellants' desire for a Critical Reclassification, the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget provides that "[p]aygrade determinations shall not be appealed" and that "[c] ritical reclassification requests are not to be appealed to the Merit Employee Relations Board." The legislature has spoken, providing a settled law that MERB could not properly hear Appellants' claims,V.
MERB's power is derived exclusively from statute and extends only to those cases that are properly before it. Because MERB did not have the authority to hear Appellants' claims, MERB's dismissal of Appellant's claims must be affirmed. The law in this area is settled and no factual findings are implicated.
See Maxwell v. Vetter, Del. Supr., 311 A.2d 864 (1973).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellee's Motions to Affirm are GRANTED .