State ex rel. Fry v. Ferguson

• Decision Date: 20 June 1973
• Docket Number: 72-194 and 72-233,Nos. 72-102,s. 72-102
• Citation: 34 Ohio St.2d 252,298 N.E.2d 129
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court
• Parties: , 21 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 185, 63 O.O.2d 392 The STATE, ex rel. FRY, v. FERGUSON, Auditor of State, et al. The STATE, ex rel. BOEHM, v. LEGATT, Treasurer, Ohio State University, et al. The STATE, ex rel. KAISER, v. FERGUSON, Auditor of State, et al.

Page 252

34 Ohio St.2d 252

298 N.E.2d 129, 21 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 185, 63 O.O.2d 392

The STATE, ex rel. FRY, v. FERGUSON, Auditor of State, et al.

The STATE, ex rel. BOEHM, v. LEGATT, Treasurer, Ohio State University, et al.

The STATE, ex rel. KAISER, v. FERGUSON, Auditor of State, et al.

Nos. 72-102, 72-194 and 72-233.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 20, 1973.

Syllabus by the Court

Mandamus will lie to compel the responsible officials to pay classified state employees at the rates of pay provided by statute. (R.C. 143.10(A).)

Relators in these three cases are classified employees of the state of Ohio. They seek the issuance of writs to mandamus to compel the respondents to pay them, retroactive to January 1, 1972, the full amount of salary provided for their respective pay ranges and steps under R.C. 143.10(A). At the time of filing these actions, relators were being paid at an hourly rate less than that provided in R.C. 143.10(A).

The officials, statutorily responsible for paying the salaries of classified state employees, are respondents.

Lucas, Prendergast, Albright, Gibson, Brown & Newman, John A. Brown and Jerry L. Riseling, Columbus, for relators.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., Robert B. Meany, Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, Duke W. Thomas and Jacob E. Davis, II, Columbus, for respondents. C. WILLIAM O'NEILL, Chief Justice.

Relators contend, and respondents admit, that the laws of Ohio impose a clear legal duty upon the respondents to pay relators the full salary which they demand in this action.

Respondents, however, argue that they are unable to comply with the Ohio law because 'the law of Ohio has been superseded by federal law * * *.' The federal law to which respondents refer is the Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, as amended. Pub.L. No. 91-379, 84 Stat. 799; Pub.L. No. 91-588, 84 Stat. 1468; Pub.L. No. 92-8, 85 Stat. 13; Pub.L. No. 92-15, 85 Stat. 38; Pub.L. No. 92-210, 85 Stat. 743.

Section 203(a) of that Act authorizes the President '* * * to issue such orders and regulations as he (may deem appropriate) to stabilize prices, rents, wages, and salaries at levels not less than those prevailing on May 25, 1970 * * *.'

On October 16, 1971, the President established a Pay Board '* * * composed of fifteen members' which '* * * shall perform such functions with respect to the stabilization of wages and salaries as the (Cost of Living) Council delegates to the Board.' Exec.Order No. 11,627, 3 C.F.R. 587 (Supp.1972). Following that executive order, the Pay Board adopted regulations concerned, inter alia, with 'pay stabilization.'

Section 201.10 of those regulations, in pertinent part, provided:

'Effective on and after November 14, 1971, the general wage and salary standard (hereinafter referred to as the 'standard') is established as 5.5 percent. The standard shall apply to any wage and salary increase payable with respect to an appropriate employee unit pursuant to an employment contract entered into or modified on or after November 14, 1971, or to a pay practice established, modified or administered with discretion on or after November 14, 1971. Except as otherwise provided in the Regulations under this title or by decision of the Pay Board, the standard shall be used to compute the maximum permissible wage and salary increase.' 6 C.F.R. 46 (Supp.1972).

Also, Section 101.28 of the regulations of the Cost of Living Council provided:

'* * * Approval, however, must be granted by the Pay Board for any pay adjustment in excess of 5.5 percent which affects the employees of state and local governments.' 6 C.F.R. 7 (Supp.1972).

On January 20, 1972, the Governor of Ohio signed into law S.B. No. 147, amending R.C. 143.10(A), which provided pay increases for classified state employees retroactive to January 1, 1972. At that time the above cited regulations of the Pay Board and Cost of Living Council were in effect.

The pay increase provided through the amendment to R.C. 143.10(A) exceeded the 5.5 percent standard established by the Cost of Living Council and the Pay Board. For that reason, respondents sought Pay Board approval to pay the salaries established in R.C. 143.10(A). The Pay Board, by its Chairman, George H. Boldt, ordered, on March 10, 1972, that:

'* * * The applicant is prohibited from making payment of the wage and salary increase until the Chairman determines that the increase to be paid does not exceed the limitations of subsections 201.11(a)(3)(iii) and (b) of the regulations. ¹ The applicant may submit and the Chairman will approve payment of a wage and salary increase up to the amount submitted to the Board which is 'placed in effect no earlier than March 17, 1972.' * * * The permissible rate for wage and salary increases to take effect during the wage year commencing November 14, 1972 shall be reduced to the extent that any wage and salary increases paid after March 17, 1972 exceed seven percent computed pursuant to the policies and regulations of the Board.'

Ostensibly as a result of Chairman Boldt's directive, respondents failed to pay relators their full statutory salaries prior to March 17, 1972.

These cases present difficult and sensitive questions respecting the jurisdictions of the state and federal governments to regulate salaries of state employees. Those questions are rendered all the more difficult where, as here, the law of one jurisdiction is clear and unequivocal, while the law of the other jurisdiction is not.

The law of Ohio plainly imposes upon respondents the duty to pay relators at the rates provided in R.C. 143.10(A). See R.C. 115.35, 113.07 and 143.39. The Economic Stabilization Act of 1970, to the contrary, does not clearly authorize the regulation of state employees' salaries. Nowhere in that Act, or its various amendments, are state employees specifically included for the purpose of salary regulation, nor is this court aware of a decision of any other court so applying that Act to state employees. ²

Therefore, the question presented here is whether a federal administrative body may lawfully assert jurisdiction over the salaries of state...