Courtney v. State Dept. of Health of West Virginia
| Decision Date | 20 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CIO,No. 19196,19196 |
| Citation | 182 W.Va. 465,388 S.E.2d 491 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | /Kentucky/Ohio, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees,v. STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH OF WEST VIRGINIA and Dr. George Lilley, Jr., its Director; West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency and Sally Richardson, its Director; West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System; Civil Service Commission of West Virginia and Lowell Basford, its Acting Director. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia |
Syllabus by the Court
1. "Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968).
2. W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] does not require an employee to be employed on the first day of the ensuing fiscal year in order to be entitled to receive an annual incremental salary increase provided by that statutory provision. Rather, the first day of any fiscal year is the date upon which the incremental salary increase is to be received.
3. "Statutes which relate to the same subject matter should be read and applied together so that the Legislature's intention can be gathered from the whole of the enactments." Syl. pt. 3, Smith v. State Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, 159 W.Va. 108, 219 S.E.2d 361 (1975).
4. Syl. pt. 7, Atchinson v. Erwin, 172 W.Va. 8, 302 S.E.2d 78 (1983).
5. W.Va.Code, 5-16-12 [1988] does not violate equal protection principles contained in article III, sections 10 & 17 or in article VI, section 39 of the West Virginia Constitution.
Larry Harless, Charleston, for Karen Courtney, Phyllis Knopp, Carol Crum, Mary Ball, Ruth Boggs, Betty Nida and District 1199 WV/KY/OH, Nat. Union of Hosp. and Health Care Employees, AFL-CIO.
Roger Tompkins, Atty. Gen. and Nora M. Antlake, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for West Virginia Div. of Health and George Lilley, Jr.
James A. Swart, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for West Virginia Public Employees Ins. Agency, Sally Richardson, and West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System.
Jan Fox, Deputy Atty. Gen., Charleston, for West Virginia Civil Service Com'n.
This original proceeding is before the Court upon the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by approximately 183 former employees of Spencer Hospital, the National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees, and the AFL-CIO. The respondents are the State Department of Health (currently known as the "Division of Health"), the West Virginia Public Employees Insurance Agency, the Civil Service Commission (currently known as the "Division of Personnel"), and the directors of these agencies. The West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System is also a respondent.
This Court has reviewed the petition, the response, and all briefs. We are of the opinion that the petitioners' writ should be awarded as moulded.
Pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Spencer Hospital was permanently closed on June 30, 1989. The employees of the hospital were informed by letter on May 31, 1989, that their services would be "terminated effective June 30, 1989."
The petitioners seek a writ of mandamus compelling the respondents to: (1) grant the petitioners' incremental salary increases pursuant to W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984]; and (2) permit the petitioners to apply accrued sick leave toward extended health insurance coverage or toward retirement benefits pursuant to W.Va.Code, 5-16-12 [1988]. 1 This Court issued a rule, directed to the respondents, to show cause why a writ of mandamus should not be awarded against them in this proceeding.
We first address the petitioners' contention that they are entitled to an incremental salary increase.
W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] provides:
Effective for the fiscal year beginning the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred eight-five, every eligible employee with three or more years of service shall receive an annual salary increase equal to thirty-six dollars times the employees' years of service, not to exceed twenty years of service. In each fiscal year thereafter and on the first day thereof, each such employee shall receive an annual increment increase of thirty-six dollars for such fiscal year: Provided, That every employee becoming newly eligible as a result of meeting the three years of service minimum requirement on the first day of July in any fiscal year subsequent to one thousand nine hundred eight-five, shall be entitled to the annual salary increase equal to the aforesaid thirty-six dollars times the employee's years of service, where he has not theretofore received the benefit of any such increment computation; and shall receive a single annual increment increase thereafter of thirty-six dollars for each such subsequent fiscal year. These incremental increases shall be in addition to any across-the-board, cost-of-living or percentage salary increases which may be granted in any fiscal year by the Legislature. This article shall not be construed to prohibit other pay increases based on merit, seniority, promotion or other reason, if funds are available for such other pay increases: Provided, however, That the executive head of each spending unit shall first grant the herein mandated increase in compensation to all eligible employees prior to the consideration of any increases based on merit, seniority, promotion or other reason.
(emphasis supplied) 2
The respondents maintain that because the petitioners were not employed on July 1, 1989, they are not entitled to receive the annual incremental salary increase provided for by W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984]. The petitioners contend, however, that they are entitled to such salary increase because they were employed for the entire fiscal year preceding July 1, 1989, and that July 1 of any year is merely the date upon which the annual incremental salary increase is to be paid. We agree with the petitioners' contention.
In State ex rel. Erwin v. Gainer, No. 16791 (August 2, 1985) (unpublished order), this Court held that W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] "is designed to supplement the regular pay of eligible State employees on the basis of past and present services." (emphasis supplied) There, the respondent, the auditor of the state, raised the argument that W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] violates the provisions contained in W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 38 and W.Va.Code, 12-3-13 [1931].
W.Va. Const. art. VI, § 38 provides, in relevant part, that "[n]o extra compensation shall be granted or allowed to any public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after the services have been rendered[.]" W.Va.Code, 12-3-13 [1931] provides that "[n]o money shall be drawn from the treasury to pay the salary of any officer or employee before his [or her] services have been rendered." In Erwin, we held that W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] does not violate either of these provisions.
The issue before us today, however, is whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the annual incremental salary increase pursuant to W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984]. See supra note 2. In order to make this determination, we need not look further than the statute itself. "Where the language of a statute is clear and without ambiguity the plain meaning is to be accepted without resorting to the rules of interpretation." Syl. pt. 2, State v. Elder, 152 W.Va. 571, 165 S.E.2d 108 (1968). Accord, syl., State ex rel. Bowlick v. Board of Education, 176 W.Va. 524, 345 S.E.2d 824 (1986); syl. pt. 2, State ex rel. Underwood v. Silverstein, 167 W.Va. 121, 278 S.E.2d 886 (1981).
As previously set forth in this opinion, W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] provides an incremental salary increase to eligible employees "on the first day" of "each fiscal year[.]" Examining the statute as a whole, we do not agree with the respondents' contention that in order to receive such salary increase, one would have to be employed on the first day of the ensuing fiscal year. Rather, it is clear that the first day of the ensuing fiscal year is merely the date upon which such salary increase is to be paid.
As noted in Erwin and previously stated herein, W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] provides compensation, as part of the regular pay, for services that were previously rendered. In this case, the petitioners rendered services throughout all of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1989. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to receive the annual incremental salary increase for that fiscal year. 3
Accordingly, we hold that W.Va.Code, 5-5-2 [1984] does not require an employee to be employed on the first day of the ensuing fiscal year in order to be entitled to receive an annual incremental salary increase provided by that statutory provision. Rather, the first day of any fiscal year is the date upon which the incremental salary increase is to be received.
We now address the petitioners' second contention, that the respondents should be compelled to permit the petitioners to apply accrued sick leave toward extended health insurance coverage or toward retirement benefits pursuant to W.Va.Code, 5-16-12(c)-(e) [1988].
W.Va.Code, chapter 5, article 16 provides for an insurance plan for state and other governmental employees. See W.Va.Code, 5-16-1 and -2(3) [1988].
W.Va.Code, 5-16-12(b) [1988] provides, in relevant part:
(b) Should a participating employee be terminated from employment...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Dell v. Town of Gauley Bridge
... ... TOWN OF GAULEY BRIDGE, a West Virginia Municipal ... Corporation; and Gauley ... pt. 1, State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 ... See Courtney v. State Dep't of Health, 182 W.Va. 465, 388 ... ...
-
Israel by Israel v. West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Com'n
... ... The claimed discrimination must be a product of state" action as distinguished from a purely private activity ... \xC2" ... 343, 359 S.E.2d 571 (1987); Christie v. West Virginia Health Care Cost Review Auth., 176 W.Va. 420, 345 S.E.2d 22 (1986); State ex ... ...
-
Marcus v. Holley
... ... of Winans Sanitary Supply Co., Inc., a West Virginia Corporation; and John Doe(s), ... 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); see also State ex rel. Abraham Linc Corp. v. Bedell, 216 W.Va ... health of the West Virginia Workers' Compensation system ... Id.; see also Courtney v. State Dept. of Health of West Virginia 182 ... ...
-
Lewis v. Canaan Valley Resorts, Inc.
... ... Supreme Court of Appeals of ... West Virginia ... Submitted March 5, 1991 ... pt. 1, State ex rel. Appalachian Power Co. v. Gainer, 149 ... See also syl. pt. 4, Courtney v. State Department of Health, 182 W.Va. 465, 388 ... ...