Opinion
No. 71-362
Decided October 25, 1972. Rehearing denied November 21, 1972. Certiorari denied January 29, 1973.
Declaratory judgment action to determine proper construction of statute providing for longevity pay increases and promotional pay increases for civil service employees. Civil service commission appealed judgment entered.
Affirmed
1. CIVIL SERVICE — Classification Promotion — Employee — Full Benefit — State Service — Construction of Statute — Proper. Where trial court construed statute relative to pay for civil service employees as providing that an employee who receives classification promotion should be accorded full benefit for time spent in state service and should be placed in same relative position as to longevity increases in promoted classification as he held at lower classification, such construction of the statute is proper and violates neither the Colorado Constitution nor other provisions of the civil service pay statute.
2. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — Class Action — Civil Service Employees — No Adverse Effect — Other Employees — No Conflict — Action Properly Allowed. Where, in declaratory judgment class action, the plaintiffs are representing group of classified civil servants all of whom are seeking additional compensation from the state based on longevity of state service and neither the relief sought in the complaint nor the judgment entered will adversely affect other civil service employees, there is no conflict within the class, and the trial court properly allowed plaintiffs to bring the class action.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable George McNamara, Judge.
James R. Gilsdorf, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Duke W. Dunbar, Attorney General, John P. Moore, Deputy, Robert L. Hoecker, Assistant, for defendants-appellants.
Plaintiffs-appellees, Colorado Association of Public Employees, representing a group of employees in the classified service of the state, and three employees, individually and on behalf of all other employees similarly situated, sought a declaratory judgment alleging that the Colorado Civil Service Commission (Commission) had misconstrued C.R.S. 1963, 26-1-2(9), pertaining to longevity pay increases and had improperly applied the statute in the Rules and Regulations of the Commission. The trial court concluded that the plaintiffs' construction of the statute was correct and entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. The Commission has appealed.
Under the applicable statute, C.R.S. 1963, 26-1-2(9), a civil service employee hired into a specific job classification, or pay grade, will receive longevity salary increments, at specified intervals. Ordinarily after five such increments, an employee will not receive a further longevity increase until he has served an additional five years of service at his job, at which time he is eligible for one additional salary increment.
The question presented in this case is: What should be the effect on an employee who, after receiving five longevity salary increases, serves additional years in that grade and then receives a promotion to a higher paying job classification?
The plaintiffs contend that an employee who receives a job classification promotion should be accorded full benefit for the time he has spent in state service and should be placed in the same relative position as to longevity increases in his new classification as he held in his lower classification. For example, an employee with seven years service at job classification level 29 who is promoted to job classification 31 would, under plaintiffs' interpretation, be treated as if he had served the full seven years at level 31.
The Commission, on the other hand, contends that an employee who receives a job classification promotion should not be given credit for all his longevity in state service, but rather should be placed in the range of longevity pay increments in his new classification such that he will continue to receive the same pay as he was receiving at his old classification. This interpretation, in effect, causes an employee to lose credit for some of his longevity in state service and means that an employee who receives a job classification promotion will receive no salary increase because of that promotion.
[1] The trial court held that the plaintiffs' construction of the statute was correct and that civil service employees are entitled to longevity pay based on time spent in state service rather than in a particular grade. We agree with the trial court and hold that its construction of C.R.S. 1963, 26-1-2(9), is proper. In so holding, we reject the contentions of the Commission that this construction violates both Colo. Const. Art. XII, Sec. 13, and C.R.S. 1963, 26-1-2(7). Neither the constitutional provision nor the statute relate to longevity salary increases.
[2] The Commission also argues that the trial court improperly allowed the plaintiffs to prosecute this action as a class action. The Commission contends that the Colorado State Civil Service Employees Association and the three individual plaintiffs are not proper parties for a class action because they cannot "fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class" within the meaning of C.R.C.P. 23(a). The Commission maintains that there is a conflict of interests within the class because the position advocated by plaintiffs would allow an employee who is promoted to a higher job classification to receive a higher salary than an employee who performed longer service within that job classification level. The plaintiffs are representing a group of classified civil servants all of whom seek additional compensation from the state based on longevity of state service. Neither the relief sought in the complaint nor the judgment ultimately entered will adversely affect other employees by reducing their pay or job classification. There is no conflict of interest within the class; therefore, the trial court properly allowed plaintiffs to bring this class action.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE ENOCH and JUDGE PIERCE concur.