State ex rel. Fry v. Ferguson, s. 72-102
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | C. WILLIAM O'NEILL |
| Citation | 34 Ohio St.2d 252,298 N.E.2d 129 |
| Decision Date | 20 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | 72-194 and 72-233,Nos. 72-102,s. 72-102 |
| 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
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.
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.
[298 N.E.2d 130]
Page 253
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Respondents, however, argue that they are unable to comply with the Ohio law because 'the law of Ohio has been superseded by federal law * * *.'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).
Page 254
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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coan v. State of California
...Court also held that omission of the United States as a party did not cause a defect in parties. (State ex rel. Fry v. Ferguson (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 252, 298 N.E.2d 129, 131--132.) 11 Cal.3d 292 Application of the Act The act does not expressly provide for regulation of state employee sala......
-
Fry v. United States 8212 822, 73
...in the state pay act. The Ohio Supreme Court granted the writ and ordered the increases to be paid. State ex rel. Fry v. Ferguson, 34 Ohio St.2d 252, 298 N.E.2d 129 (1973). Page 545 After the State Supreme Court decision, the United States filed this action in the District Court to enjoin O......
-
United States v. State of Ohio, 6-2.
...Court of Ohio in the consolidated cases of Fry v. Ferguson, State ex rel. Boehm v. Legatt, and State ex rel. Kaiser v. Ferguson, 34 Ohio St.2d 252, 298 N.E.2d 129, determined that the state officials must pay the entire salary increases provided by the Pay Bill. The Government was not a par......
-
United States v. State of California, 9-13
...commerce. Appellants would thus have this Court adopt the reasoning of Coan v. State of California, supra, and Fry v. Ferguson, 34 Ohio St.2d 252, 298 N.E.2d 129 (1973). This Court has, however, resolved these issues in favor of Congress' intent and power to regulate wages paid and charges ......