Aiken, Matter of, 12793
| Decision Date | 17 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 12793,12793 |
| Citation | 296 N.W.2d 538 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Grievance of Troopers AIKEN, Anderson, Assman, Bender, Breske, Culhane, Doyle, Dupraz, Fratzke, Gillies, Halverson, Hantz, Hastetter, Hover, Jensen, Kirkpatrick, Konshak, Maag, Milbrandt, Miller, Neihart, Ottenbacher, Overbay, Patterson, Paul, Sand, Schafer, Senyak, Spencer, Sterling, Veneklasen, Vostad and Walton. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Richard H. Wendt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Pierre, for appellee State of South Dakota; Mark V. Meierhenry, Atty. Gen., Pierre, on brief.
Max A. Gors, Pierre, for appellant Troopers.
This appeal stems from the circuit court's order denying petitioners' appeal from the Secretary of Public Safety's determination that petitioners were not entitled to a five percent salary increase. We affirm.
Petitioners, all South Dakota Highway Patrol Troopers, filed a grievance with the Superintendent of the South Dakota Highway Patrol. They base their grievance on their rate of payment. Petitioners were all hired at the level of Trooper I and were promoted to the level of Trooper II as they became eligible at the end of a three-year period. When they were promoted from Trooper I to Trooper II they were given the minimum salary for the Trooper II level. They allege that they should have received the greater of the minimum salary of the new level or a five percent increase, as provided in ARSD 55:01:18:17. 1
Petitioners had an informal hearing before the Highway Patrol Superintendent, after which he denied their grievance. Petitioners then appealed the superintendent's decision to the Secretary of Public Safety (Secretary) and to the Police Civil Service Commission. While the latter denied jurisdiction, Secretary presided over a hearing on the matter, but later also denied the grievance on the grounds that the "compensation plan" referred to in ARSD 55:02:07:01 is the plan described in ARSD 55:01:17:03, not 55:01:18 (Administration of Compensation Plan) so that the rules of the Personnel Policy Board (now extinct) and the Bureau of Personnel are not applicable to petitioners; that SDCL 3-6A-13 exempts the Police Civil Service Commission from the Career Service Act; and that SDCL 32-2-10 authorizes the Department of Public Safety alone to prescribe salaries.
Although the State originally took the position that petitioners were reclassified and not promoted, it apparently now accepts that they were in fact promoted and not reclassified, as the circuit court found, since it did not cross-appeal.
The sentence most at issue is that which is contained in ARSD 55:02:07:01. That section reads:
Petitioners argue that it should be read to mean: The entrance level of the salaries for the classified positions of the highway patrol and the division of criminal investigation shall conform to (1) the ranges established in the classification plan and (2) the compensation plan of the bureau of personnel.
The State argues that it should be read to mean: The entrance level of the salaries for the classified positions of the highway patrol and the division of criminal investigation shall conform to the ranges established in (1) the classification plan and (2) the compensation plan of the bureau of personnel.
The circuit court agreed with the State that the "entrance levels are to conform to ranges established in the classification and compensation plans." Based on this interpretation of the sentence, the circuit court found that "the Commission did not adopt the Bureau's rules regarding the effects of promotion and classification of wages . . .," as petitioners argue. 2
To interpret...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petition of Famous Brands, Inc.
...347 N.W.2d 882 ... In the Matter of the Petition of FAMOUS BRANDS, INC. to ... Obtain a Declaratory Ruling ... No. 14269 ... Matter of Aiken, 296 N.W.2d 538, 540 (S.D.1980); State Highway Comm'n v. Wieczorek, 248 N.W.2d 369, 372 ... ...
-
Klatt v. Continental Ins. Co.
... ... matter of law because there are no genuine issues of material fact. SDCL 15-6-56(c); Trapp v. Madera ... Matter of Aiken, 296 N.W.2d 538, 540 (S.D.1980); State Highway Commission v. Wieczorek, 248 N.W.2d 369, 372 ... ...
-
Blue Fox Bar, Inc. v. City of Yankton
... ... Matter of Aiken, 296 N.W.2d 538, 540 (S.D.1980); Board of Regents v. Carter, 89 S.D. 40, 228 N.W.2d 621, ... ...
-
B.W. v. Meade County
... ... Citing statutory immunity and failure to prove negligence as a matter of law, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Davis, Sheffield, and Meade County ... Aiken, 296 N.W.2d 538, 540 (S.D.1980); Matter of SDDS, Inc., 472 N.W.2d 502, 507 (S.D.1991) (the ... ...