Hunt v. Goeckel
| Decision Date | 24 June 1998 |
| Parties | Peter D. HUNT, E. Michael Dugan, Nancy R. Johnson, Marilyn J. Labosky, Michelle M. Logan, Connie R. Rusin and Rhonda J. Seamon, Petitioners, v. Gary GOECKEL, Tina Pickett and Janet Lewis, Bradford County Commissioners, and Bradford County Retirement Board, Respondents, v. GOVERNOR'S COUNCIL ON DRUG AND ALCOHOL ABUSE, OFFICE OF the GOVERNOR of the COMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA; Department of Health, Office of Drug and Alcohol Programs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and State Civil Service Commission, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Additional Respondents. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
David C. Shipman, Williamsport, for petitioners.
Michael A. Farnan, Deputy Attorney General, Harrisburg and Robert E. Durrant, Pittsburgh, for respondents.
Before DOYLE and FLAHERTY, JJ., and MIRARCHI, Jr., Senior Judge.
Peter D. Hunt, E. Michael Dugan, Nancy R. Johnson, Marilyn J. Labosky, Michelle M. Logan, Connie R. Rusin and Rhonda J. Seamon (collectively, Petitioners) are past or present employees of the Bradford/Sullivan Counties Drug and Alcohol Program. Gary Goeckel, Tina Pickett and Janet Lewis are Bradford County Commissioners and are members of the Bradford County Retirement Board. 1 On December 13, 1996, Petitioners brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford County (trial court) against Respondents alleging that, pursuant to a personnel agreement entered into on July 1, 1985, by the Department of Health, Office of Drug and Alcohol Programs, the commissioners of Bradford and Sullivan Counties and the State Civil Service Commission, Petitioners became employees of Bradford County. Petitioners sought a declaration that they are third-party beneficiaries of the personnel agreement and that as of July 1, 1985, they were entitled to participate in the Bradford County pension plan. Petitioners' complaint also included a count in mandamus requesting that this Court order Respondents to credit them for their years of county service for purpose of vesting in the Bradford County pension plan and to pay to each Petitioner the penalty each Petitioner was required to pay in order to transfer his or her previous retirement funds into the Bradford County pension plan.
Respondents filed an answer in which they asserted that Petitioners did not become employees of Bradford County until June 25, 1995. Respondents allege that prior to this date, Petitioners were employees of the Bradford/Sullivan Counties Drug and Alcohol Program or its predecessor, the Bradford/Sullivan/Tioga Counties Drug and Alcohol Program. Respondents also filed a complaint joining the following additional defendants: the Governor's Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse; the Department of Health, Office of Drug and Alcohol Programs; and, the State Civil Service Commission (collectively, Additional Respondents). In their complaint, Respondents alleged that joinder of Additional Respondents was necessary because the case could not be appropriately adjudicated without their involvement. Respondents alleged that the Bradford/Sullivan Counties Drug and Alcohol Program was a delegate agency of the Governor's Council on Drug and Alcohol Abuse and that its employees were Commonwealth employees. Respondents sought a determination that Petitioners were employees of the Commonwealth or, in the alternative, that the Commonwealth was responsible to provide the requisite financial support necessary to maintain the Bradford County Pension Plan in the event that it was concluded that Petitioners were Bradford County employees.
Additional Respondents filed preliminary objections to the complaint alleging that the Board of Claims had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the case, and, in the alternative, that this matter came within this Court's original jurisdiction. Additional Respondents sought dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, transfer of the action to the Board of Claims or to Commonwealth Court. On September 19, 1997, the trial court granted the preliminary objections and transferred the case to this Court.
This Court, sua sponte, raised the issue of whether the Board of Claims had jurisdiction over the matter. After oral argument, the Court issued an order concluding that jurisdiction was proper in this Court. Additional Respondents then filed an application for reargument. This Court granted the application and vacated its previous order.
Additional Respondents argue that the matter is properly within the jurisdiction of the Board of Claims. Additional respondents assert that the case should be transferred to the Board of Claims because Petitioners rely on provisions of the personnel agreement to assert their claim and because Petitioners alleged that this agreement is a contract.
Respondents argue that jurisdiction does not lie in the Board of Claims. Respondents assert that their claims against Additional Respondents do not arise from a contract with the Commonwealth, and that the claims instead focus entirely upon the Commonwealth's statutory and regulatory duty to provide funding for Petitioners' pensions plans in accordance with the County Pension Law. Respondents assert that the matter comes within the original jurisdiction of this Court.
Petitioners agree with Additional Respondents that jurisdiction lies within the Board of Claims but argue that, under the circumstances presented in the case, the case should not be transferred to the Board of Claims. Petitioners argue that the third party complaint against Additional Respondents should be dismissed and the case transferred back to the trial court for disposition. Petitioners argue that a transfer would serve the interest of judicial economy, public policy and practicality. If Respondents prevail in the trial court, there would be no need for the Board of Claims to hear Petitioners' claims. If Petitioners prevail, Additional Respondents could be requested...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. State Workers' Ins. Fund of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
...asserted by Wausau also was based on the contract between Lang and PennDOT, that claim also should be heard by the Board. In Hunt v. Goeckel, 713 A.2d 746 (Pa.Cmwlth.1998), employees of a joint county drug and alcohol program filed an action seeking a declaration that they were third-party ......
-
Kutnyak v. Department of Corrections
...is triggered "when the claimant relies upon the provisions of [a] contract in asserting the claim against the Commonwealth." Hunt v. Goeckel, 713 A.2d 746, 748-49 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1998) (quoting Keenheel v. Pennsylvania Securities Commission, 523 Pa. 223, 565 A.2d 1147 There is no question that ......
-
Hanover Ins. Co. v. State Workers' Ins. Fund of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 620 M.D. 2010
...by Wausau also was based on the contract between Lang and PennDOT, that claim also should be heard by the Board. In Hunt v. Goeckel 713 A.2d 746 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998), employees of a joint county drug and alcohol program filed an action seeking a declaration that they were third-party benefici......
- Horvath v. COM., DEPT. OF TRANSP.