Brown v. State Merit System of Personnel Administration

• Decision Date: 19 February 1980
• Docket Number: Nos. 35434,s. 35434
• Citation: 264 S.E.2d 186,245 Ga. 239
• Parties: BROWN et al. v. STATE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION of Georgia et al. BILLINGS et al. v. STATE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION of Georgia et al. DAVIS et al. v. STATE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION of Georgia et al. to 35436.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Page 186

264 S.E.2d 186

245 Ga. 239

BROWN et al. v. STATE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION of Georgia et al.

BILLINGS et al. v. STATE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION of Georgia et al.

DAVIS et al. v. STATE MERIT SYSTEM OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION of Georgia et al.

Nos. 35434 to 35436.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Argued Oct. 9, 1979.

Decided Feb. 5, 1980.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 19, 1980.

W. Fred Orr, II, James G. Edwards, II, Decatur, for appellants.

Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Wayne P. Yancey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.

BOWLES, Justice.

This appeal is from an order of DeKalb Superior Court denying appellants injunctive relief and refusing to declare certain regulations of the State Personnel Board unconstitutional. Appellants are state employees whose jobs were affected by the implementation of reductions-in-force plans approved by the State Merit System. Appellees include the State Merit System of Personnel Administration of Georgia, the State Personnel Board and its members, the Commissioner of the State Merit System of Personnel Administration of Georgia, the Department of Human Resources of the State of Georgia, the Commissioner of the Department of Human Resources, the Director of the Division of Physical Health of the Department of Human Resources, and the Director of Personnel Services of said Department.

During the 1979 legislative session, the Georgia General Assembly reduced the appropriation for the Division of Physical Health. As a result, many positions in the division had to be abolished. Pursuant to Regulation D of the Rules and Regulations of the State Personnel Board, the Department of Human Resources, Division of Physical Health, proposed two reduction-in-force plans, one for the state office and one for the district office. The plans were submitted to the Commissioner of Personnel Administration and approved by him after review by his staff. Subsequent to approval, several minor changes were made in the plan due to the discovery of errors or due to people with greater retention credits having resigned or finding other employment, thereby making positions available to employees scheduled for demotion or separation under the plan. These changes were verified and initialed by the Merit System staff.

Appellants received notices that pursuant to the reduction-in-force plans they would be either involuntarily demoted or involuntarily separated. They filed suit complaining that the reduction-in-force regulations of the State Personnel Board were improperly promulgated and improperly applied in their cases. The complaints were consolidated in the trial court and on appeal to this court.

1. Appellants first complain that appellees did not comply with Regulation D of the State Personnel Board in implementing the reduction-in-force plans.

(a) They complain that the department did not submit a final proposed plan of action to the commissioner in accordance with Paragraph D. 103.1 of Regulation D. However, the trial court found that plans for reductions-in-force were submitted to the Commissioner of Personnel Administration. They were reviewed by him and approved on June 15, 1979. Since that approval there have been some employees in positions that were affected by the plan who have voluntarily resigned or otherwise left state employment. These employees possessed higher retention credits than some other employees affected by the reduction-in-force plan. Their leaving created vacancies for some other employees who had been demoted or separated as a result of the approved plan. The result was an adjustment under the plan but not an amendment to the plan itself. The same is true of corrected errors of retention credits. All adjustments and corrections to the plan were initialed by the Merit System staff. We do not find that such adjustments and corrections require resubmission of the plans for approval by the commissioner. Such a requirement would delay implementation of any reduction-in-force plan indefinitely and is not contemplated under Regulation D of the State Personnel Board's rules.

(b) They complain that the reduction-in-force plans were implemented for reasons other than "curtailment of funds or reduction in staff." This factual determination was made by the trial court adversely to appellant's position. The evidence supports this determination that every position abolished by the reductions-in-force was a direct result of reduction in funds made to the Division of Physical Health by the General Assembly. This was the justification given for all demotions and separations made under the plans and was authorized under Regulation D.

(c) Appellants complain that no non-status employees were laid off before formulating or submitting the proposed reductions-in-force plans to the commissioner, in violation of Section D. 400 of Regulation D. However, there is no evidence that there were any non-status employees employed by the Division of Physical Health at the time the plans were submitted.

(d) Appellants complain that they should not have been subject to any reduction-in-force action because under Regulation D only employees with less than "very good" ratings are subject to the plan. It is undisputed that appellants had received at least "very good" or "excellent" ratings as Merit System employees.

Section D. 300 provides, "Within a competitive area competition shall be among all employees holding positions of a particular class." (Emphasis supplied.) Thereafter, Section D. 500 provides the sequence for reduction within a competitive area based on rating and veteran status. Section D. 600 sets forth the number of retention credits to be given for various employee ratings, including employees with ratings of "very good" and "excellent".

Appellants argue that because Section D. 500 did not specifically mention employees with "very good" and "excellent" ratings, they are excluded from the entire scope of State Personnel Board Regulation D. This interpretation of the regulation would virtually destroy the value of the regulation. Any agency where the performance ratings were high would be unable to reduce its staff even in the face of budget cuts by the General Assembly.

The construction which will give effect to a statute or rule is preferred to a construction which will destroy it. Mathis v. Fulton Industrial Corp., 168 Ga. 719, 149 S.E. 35 (1929); Wellmaker v. Terrell, 3 Ga.App. 791, 60 S.E. 464 (1907). We interpret State Personnel Board Regulation D to apply to all employees, whatever their rating, including appellants.

We find the evidence supports the trial court's findings that appellees complied with State Personnel Board's Regulation D in implementing the reductions-in-force plans submitted and approved by the commissioner on ...