State ex rel. Hennepin County Welfare Bd. v. Fitzsimmons, 35949

• Decision Date: 05 June 1953
• Docket Number: No. 35949,35949
• Citation: 58 N.W.2d 882,239 Minn. 407
• Parties: STATE ex rel. HENNEPIN COUNTY WELFARE BOARD et al. v. FITZSIMMONS et al.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 882

58 N.W.2d 882

239 Minn. 407

STATE ex rel. HENNEPIN COUNTY WELFARE BOARD et al. v. FITZSIMMONS et al.

No. 35949.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

June 5, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Under the Social Security Act of the United States and the rules and regulations issued and promulgated to the several states, pursuant to the act, by the Federal Security Agency, Social Security Administration and under the social welfare and county welfare board laws of the state of Minnesota and the rules and regulations issued and promulgated, pursuant to said laws, by the Director of Social Welfare of Minnesota, the revised basic compensation plan adopted and promulgated by the Director of Social Welfare and approved by the Federal Security Agency containing initial, intervening, and maximum rates of pay for each class of positions in the county welfare board system is binding upon all of the county welfare boards of Minnesota. The county welfare boards of the several counties of this state in fixing the salaries of their employees are required to do so within the salary range set forth by the Director of Social Welfare in his revised basic compensation plan. Accordingly, the Hennepin County Welfare Board was without authority to pay its employees salaries which exceeded the maximum rates of pay set forth in the Director's revised basic compensation plan.

2. A party is not entitled to a peremptory writ of mandamus if at the time of the trial he cannot show a clear, legal right to the writ. It will not issue unless it serves a legal purpose. The action of the trial court in refusing to issue a peremptory writ under the circumstances here shown must be sustained.

Lee Loevinger, Sp. Asst. County Atty., Minneapolis, for appellants.

Michael J. Dillon, County Atty., Frank J. Williams, Atty. County Atty., Minneapolis, for respondent Fitzsimmons.

J. A. A. Burnquist, Atty. Gen., Geo. B. Sjoselius, Deputy Atty. Gen., Lowell J. Grady, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent Nichols.

Thomas O. Kachelmacher, Minneapolis, for intervenors and respondents.

DELL, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment entered on August 16, 1952, quashing an alternative writ of mandamus issued on January 18, 1952, and dismissing the proceeding.

On August 14, 1935, Congress enacted the federal Social Security Act. It provided for the administration of the program by agencies established or to be established by the several states but with the general supervision of the program in the federal government. The Social Security Board (now Administrator) was authorized to establish requirements for such methods of administration as were found to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of the plan subject to the provision that the methods of administration were not to relate to the selection, tenure of office, and compensation of personnel.

On December 2, 1935, the Minnesota legislature met in special session and enacted legislation to enable the people of Minnesota to avail themselves of the benefits of the federal Social Security Act. Laws were enacted authorizing aid to the 'blind' as well as 'old age assistance.' In 1937 legislation was enacted authorizing aid to 'dependent children' in conformity with the federal act and legislation was also enacted setting up county welfare boards throughout the state as the administrative agencies. In 1939 the duties of the State Board of Control were transferred by legislative act to the Director of Social Welfare (herein referred to as Director). In 1939 Congress amended the federal Social Security Act to authorize the Social Security Board to require, after January 1, 1940, the states to adopt 'methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of personnel standards on a merit basis.' 42 U.S.C.A. § 302.

In 1941, following the enactment of the 1939 amendment to the federal Social Security Act, the legislature enacted a law to insure the establishment and maintenance of a merit plan for all employees of the county welfare boards of the state. By statute the legislature authorized the Director to adopt such rules and regulations as were necessary to comply with the requirements of the federal Social Security Act. In the interim between January 1, 1940, and the passage of the 1941 Minnesota act, the state of Minnesota appears to have continued its operation under the former program. Whether that arrangement was by permission or sufferance of the federal Social Security Board until such time as the Minnesota legislature had opportunity to enact enabling legislation does not appear in the stipulated facts. It is not of material consequence here. The fact is that, at its first session next following the 1939 amendment to the federal Social Security Act, the Minnesota legislature conferred upon the Director the authority to establish the rules and regulations here involved.

Pursuant to the authority granted to the Director under the Minnesota Laws of 1941 he adopted rules for a merit system of personnel administration for employees of the county welfare boards throughout the entire state. The rules are set forth in a publication entitled, 'Public Welfare Manual, Part IV, Personnel--Standards and Practices.' Among the rules adopted was one establishing initial, intervening, and maximum rates of pay for each class of positions and providing for steps in salary advancement without change of duty in recognition of meritorious service. Another rule adopted provided that the approved compensation plan should constitute the official schedule of salaries for all classes of positions in the county welfare merit system program.

On September 1, 1948, the Federal Security Agency, Social Security Administration, issued and promulgated to all state agencies participating in the grants-in-aid programs under the federal Social Security Administration, including the Director of Social Welfare of the state of Minnesota, a 'Handbook of Public Assistance Administration,' which handbook, among other things, contained standards for a merit system of personnel administration to be established and maintained by any state agency administering approved public assistance plans under the Social Security Administration.

On July 31, 1950, a revised basic compensation plan was adopted and promulgated by the Director superseding the basic compensation plan previously adopted. This revised basic plan was transmitted by the Director to the Federal Security Agency for acceptance and approval. On September 22, 1950, the plan was approved by the Federal Security Agency for the programs of the state of Minnesota covering old age assistance, aid to dependent children, and aid to the blind. The rules and regulations established by the Director in the revised basic plan permitted the county welfare boards throughout the state of Minnesota to fix the compensation of employees within the minimum and maximum salary ranges set out in the rules and regulations of the Director and also gave the county welfare boards discretionary power to grant certain cost-of-living and incentive salary increases to its employees.

Up until December 31, 1951, the Hennepin County Welfare Board paid its employees salaries in accordance with said revised basic compensation plan together with cost-of-living and incentive increases as authorized by the rules and regulations of the Director. On October 16, 1951, the board, by resolution, approved a salary schedule for its employees which exceeded the maximum set forth in the schedule of the Director's established revised basic compensation plan. The salary schedule was submitted to the Director by the board with the request that he incorporate the salary schedule in a statewide compensation plan and as a schedule of salaries for the employees of the Hennepin County Welfare Board. After several conferences, the Director, on November 14, 1951, rejected the proposed salary schedule and request of the Hennepin County Welfare Board and informed the board of his rejection and disapproval.

Notwithstanding the rejection and disapproval of said salary schedule by the Director, the Hennepin County Welfare Board, on December 24, 1951, adopted the salary schedule and plan for its employees. The salaries and rates of compensation were in excess of those provided for in the rules and revised basic plan adopted and promulgated by the Director. Upon being advised by the Hennepin County Welfare Board of its action in adopting the new salary schedule, which schedule the board advised the Director was to become effective on January 1, 1952, the Director, on December 27, 1951, notified the Hennepin County Welfare Board that the salary increases provided in the schedule were not in conformance with the merit system rules and revised basic plan of the Director. The Director also notified the defendant, county auditor of Hennepin county, that the schedule of salaries fixed by the Hennepin County Welfare Board, in its schedules of December 24, 1951, were in excess of those established by the Director in his rules and revised basic plan and were, therefore, illegal and void, and the defendant was advised by the Director that he was without legal authority to issue warrants in payment of said salaries.

On January 7, 1952, the Hennepin County Welfare Board certified to the defendant orders for the payment of salaries to its executive secretary and other employees in accordance with the schedule adopted by the board on December 24, 1951. On January 9, 1952, defendant advised the Hennepin County Welfare Board that he would not issue warrants in payment of the salaries because the salaries were in excess of those provided in the personnel rules of the Director. The defendant, in a written opinion by the county attorney of Hennepin county, was advised that, since the salaries in the schedule adopted by the Hennepin County Welfare Board on December 24, 1951, exceeded those established by the Director in his revised basic plan, it was...