City of Bessemer v. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County

• Decision Date: 06 August 1982
• Parties: The CITY OF BESSEMER, a municipal corporation v. The PERSONNEL BOARD OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, et al. 80-831.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Page 6

420 So.2d 6

The CITY OF BESSEMER, a municipal corporation v. The PERSONNEL BOARD OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, et al.

80-831.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Aug. 6, 1982.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 1, 1982.

Norman K. Brown, Bessemer, for appellant.

James R. Clifton of Stone, Patton & Kierce, Bessemer, for appellees.

SHORES, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Personnel Board of Jefferson County (personnel board) and John C. Nixon in an action for declaratory judgment.

Nixon, an employee of the street department of the city of Bessemer, filed employee grievances pursuant to Rule 8.6 of the Rules and Regulations of the Personnel Board of Jefferson County. The grievances stemmed from: (1) removal of Mr. Nixon's lead worker designation; and (2) change of Mr. Nixon's duty assignment. Upon reevaluation, the issue of lead worker designation was removed from the grievance system and investigated by the personnel board. The director of the personnel board determined, however, that the question of the change of Mr. Nixon's duty assignment from sewer crew to another position was a grievance as defined by Rule 8.6(a) and was subject to review under the rule.

Bessemer then filed an action in circuit court seeking a declaratory judgment to determine the enforceability of Rule 8.6. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both defendants, finding that: (1) the grievance procedure is a valid exercise of the personnel board's rulemaking authority; and (2) Mr. Nixon's complaints were grievable within the definition contained in the rule.

From that judgment, Bessemer appealed. We affirm.

Rule 8.6 provides:

"8.6 GRIEVANCES. The most effective accomplishment of the work of the various jurisdictions and departments requires prompt consideration and equitable adjustment of employee grievances. It is the desire of all parties to adjust grievances informally, and both supervisors and employees are expected to make every effort to resolve problems as they arise. However, it is recognized that there will be grievances which will be resolved only after a formal appeal and review.

"a) DEFINITION OF GRIEVANCE. A grievance is a wrong, real or fancied, considered by an employee as grounds for complaint. Matters dealing with classification, pay, compensation, examination, leave, discipline, and related actions specifically set forth in the Personnel rules and regulations, shall not be considered under grievance procedures, but shall be adjusted in accordance with the provisions set forth in these rules and regulations. Any question as to what constitutes a grievance or what should be processed as a matter subject to these rules and regulations, shall be determined by the Director, subject to the review of the Board.

"b) GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE. Any employee may register a grievance. In the presentation of grievances, employees are assured of freedom from restraint, interference, discrimination or reprisal. All adjustments of grievances processed under this rule shall be retroactive to the time the grievance is first submitted in writing by the aggrieved employee. The aggrieved employee may be represented by counsel or other person of his choosing.

"Step 1. (1) The grievance must be submitted in writing to the immediate supervisor within five (5) days of the occurrence of the incident. A copy of the complaint must also be filed with the Employee Relations Division of the Personnel Board. All such complaints shall cite the reasons and nature of complaint and must be signed by the employee.

"(2) The immediate supervisor shall within three (3) days, reply in writing, with a copy furnished to the Employee Relations Division of the Personnel Board, his answer to the complaint or grievance.

"Step II. If unresolved in five (5) days, the written grievance, and the supervisor's answer shall be submitted to the department head. The department head, shall within five (5) days, reply in writing to all parties concerned and forward a copy of his answer to the Employee Relations Division of the Personnel Board.

"Step III. If unresolved, the grievance shall be submitted to a Grievance Committee, composed as follows:

"(1) One (1) member elected by the classified employees of the jurisdiction in question. The term of the employee elected member shall be for a period of twelve months. One (1) member designated by the appointing authority of the jurisdiction in question. The third member shall be a mutually agreed upon person selected by the first two members.

"(2) In the event no mutual party can be agreed upon by members one and two within a period of ten (10) days, the Personnel Board shall designate member number three.

"(3) The Grievance Committee as constituted shall review the findings of all parties concerned and may obtain additional information as they deem necessary. They shall render a decision concerning the unresolved grievance within thirty (30) days after receipt of such grievance. The decision shall be binding on all concerned parties.

"(4) The Director of Personnel shall provide such minimal administration services as may be necessary and shall exercise his authority to require the production of records or appearance of witnesses as may be required to carry out the provisions of this rule."

Bessemer contends that the rule, by binding all parties to the decision of the grievance committee, constitutes compulsory arbitration in violation of Art. IV, § 84, Ala.Const.1901. We disagree.

Appellant correctly cites the law generally in this country and specifically in Alabama that compulsory arbitration is against public policy. See, e.g., Wells v. Mobile County Board of Realtors, 387 So.2d 140 (Ala.1980). We find, however, that Rule 8.6 does not authorize arbitration, compulsory or otherwise, but merely provides an administrative procedure for grievance resolution for public employees.

As stated in Wells, supra:

"The public policy of this state is to encourage arbitration and amicable settlements of differences between parties; but public policy also holds void an agreement in advance to oust or defeat the jurisdiction of all courts, as to all differences between parties."

387 So.2d at 144.

The evil we condemned in Wells was that any dispute, whenever it arose between the parties, was required to be submitted to arbitration. In the instant case, however, the definition of "grievance" contained in part (a) of Rule 8.6 limits the application of the rule so as to exclude all but day-to-day employee complaints that are more efficiently and economically handled extrajudicially. The implementation of Rule 8.6 affords a practical means of dispute resolution that would otherwise not be available to public employees.

Because we find Rule 8.6 violates no constitutional provisions and does not subvert nor enlarge upon any statutory policy, as Bessemer contends, it necessarily follows...