State v. Van Ulzen, No. 1-383A90
| Docket Nº | No. 1-383A90 |
| Citation | 456 N.E.2d 459 |
| Case Date | November 23, 1983 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 459
Warden, Indiana State Prison; Indiana Department of
Correction; Gordon H. Faulkner, Commissioner, Indiana
Department of Correction, Defendants-appellants,
v.
William R. VAN ULZEN and Richard A. Sowards, Plaintiffs-appellees.
First District.
Page 460
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Sabra A. Weliever, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for defendants-appellants .
Jonathan L. Birge, Joseph H. Hogsett, Bingham, Summers, Welsh & Spilman, Indianapolis, for plaintiffs-appellees.
NEAL, Judge.
The State of Indiana (State), defendant below, appeals the Shelby Circuit Court's decision to order arbitration pursuant to West's AIC 4-15-2-35, a provision of the State Personnel Act, IND.CODE 4-15-2-1 et seq.
We reverse.
Plaintiff-appellees William R. Van Ulzen and Richard A. Sowards are teachers at the Indiana State Prison, Michigan City, Indiana. On June 14, 1982, during an institutional lockdown, Van Ulzen and Sowards were assigned duties ordinarily performed by correctional officers. As a result of this incident, Van Ulzen and Sowards filed grievances under IND.CODE 4-15-2-35, pursuant to the State Personnel Act, alleging that the performance of the duties of a correctional officer on June 14th involuntarily changed their status of employment and created an unsatisfactory condition of employment.
IND.CODE 4-15-2-35 provides for a multi-stage complaint procedure culminating in a hearing before the State Employees Appeals Commission (Commission). In the instant case, Van Ulzen and Sowards' grievances were denied by their immediate supervisor, their intermediate supervisor, and the superintendent of the institution, their appointing authority. Then Van Ulzen and Sowards each submitted their complaint to the State Personnel Director, who denied their complaint, citing Rule 4-2(F)(3) of the official rules of the State Personnel Department which concerns substitution of employees in unrelated positions. Van Ulzen and Sowards subsequently appealed to the
Page 461
State Employees Appeals Commission. The Commission determined that the grievances failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and denied the plaintiff-appellees a hearing. Van Ulzen and Sowards then made a written request to the Commissioner of the Indiana Division of Labor that their complaints be submitted to binding arbitration pursuant to IND.CODE 4-15-2-35. The Commissioner appointed separate panels of arbitrators. Plaintiff-appellees struck the name of one arbitrator from the list and notified the State of its similar prerogative under IND.CODE 4-15-2-35. The State refused to strike from the panels, contending that no arbitrable grievance was present in either complaint. Van Ulzen and Sowards consequently initiated the present action in the trial court, proceeding under IND.CODE 34-4-2-3 in order to compel arbitration. The trial court decided that the State had "unilaterally determined" that the plaintiff-appellees' grievances were not arbitrable (Record, pg. 7) and ordered arbitration. The trial court further awarded $1,700.00 in attorney fees against the State.On appeal, the following issues are presented, restated by us:
I. Whether the trial court erred in ordering arbitration pursuant to IND.CODE 4-15-2-35 of the State Personnel Act.
II. Whether the trial court erred in awarding attorney fees against the State.
Issue I: Arbitration.
One of the purposes of the State Personnel Act is to establish a personnel system "based on merit and scientific methods relating to the appointment, compensation, promotion, transfer, layoff, removal and discipline of employees ...". IND.CODE 4-15-2-1. IND.CODE 4-15-1.5-1 creates the State Employees Appeals Commission which is authorized pursuant to IND.CODE 4-15-1.5-6, to hear appeals from state employees and render decisions as to the validity of such appeals or lack thereof. The hearings are to be conducted in accordance with IND.CODE 4-22-1-1 et seq., the Administrative Adjudication Act. IND.CODE 4-15-1.5-6(a).
The Administrative Adjudication Act (AAA), IND.CODE 4-22-1-1 et seq., was enacted to establish a uniform method of court review of all administrative adjudications by Indiana agencies. IND.CODE 4-22-1-1. Section 3 of the AAA provides "that in every administrative adjudication in which the ... legal relations of any person are required or authorized by statute to be determined by any agency", such determinations shall be made in accordance with the AAA.
Any party or person aggrieved by an order or determination of an agency is entitled to judicial review. IND.CODE 4-22-1-14. Such review is commenced by filing a petition with the appropriate circuit or superior court within 15 days of the receipt of the agency's order. Id. The petition must specifically allege wherein the order, decision or determination of the agency is:
"(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law; or
(2) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity; or
(3) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations, or short of statutory right; or
(4) Without observance of procedure required by law; or
(5) Unsupported by substantial evidence."
IND.CODE 4-22-1-18. If the trial court finds any one of the above, it may remand the case to the agency for further proceedings and may compel agency action withheld or unreasonably delayed. IND.CODE 4-22-1-18(5).
Court review of administrative action affecting legal relationships is intended to be an exclusive statutory remedy. Thompson v. Medical Licensing Board,
Page 462
(1979) 180 Ind.App. 333, 389 N.E.2d 43, cert. denied, 449 U.S....To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Dept. of Highways v. Dixon, No. 82S01-8907-CV-569
...to a court acquiring jurisdiction where review is sought from an administrative determination. State v. Van Ulzen (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459. The statutory language of Ind.Code Sec. 4-22-1-14(b) "Said petition for review shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after receipt of no......
-
Shipshewana Convenience Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of LaGrange County, No. 44
...Bd. v. Parkman (1969), 252 Ind. 44, 49, 245 N.E.2d 153, 156; state employee work assignments, State v. Van Ulzen (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459, 464, trans. denied; professional licensing, White v. Board of Medical Registration and Examination (1956), 235 Ind. 572, 577, 134 N.E.2d 556, 56......
-
Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. v. Roberts, EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH
...aggrieved party with the appropriate circuit or superior court within 15 days of the agency's order, State v. Van Ulzen, (1983) Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459, alleging that the order, decision or determination "(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance......
-
Indiana State Bd. of Health v. Werner, No. 49A02-0505-CV-375.
...to a court acquiring jurisdiction where review is sought from an administrative determination. State v. Van Ulzen (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459. Id. More recently, however, our supreme court noted that an important principle of administrative law is that the failure to comply strictly wi......
-
Indiana Dept. of Highways v. Dixon, No. 82S01-8907-CV-569
...to a court acquiring jurisdiction where review is sought from an administrative determination. State v. Van Ulzen (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459. The statutory language of Ind.Code Sec. 4-22-1-14(b) "Said petition for review shall be filed within fifteen (15) days after receipt of no......
-
Shipshewana Convenience Corp. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of LaGrange County, No. 44
...Bd. v. Parkman (1969), 252 Ind. 44, 49, 245 N.E.2d 153, 156; state employee work assignments, State v. Van Ulzen (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459, 464, trans. denied; professional licensing, White v. Board of Medical Registration and Examination (1956), 235 Ind. 572, 577, 134 N.E.2d 556, 56......
-
Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp. v. Roberts, EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH
...aggrieved party with the appropriate circuit or superior court within 15 days of the agency's order, State v. Van Ulzen, (1983) Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459, alleging that the order, decision or determination "(1) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance......
-
Indiana State Bd. of Health v. Werner, No. 49A02-0505-CV-375.
...to a court acquiring jurisdiction where review is sought from an administrative determination. State v. Van Ulzen (1983), Ind.App., 456 N.E.2d 459. Id. More recently, however, our supreme court noted that an important principle of administrative law is that the failure to comply strictly wi......