Trucano v. Department of Labor and Industries, 6369-7-II
| Decision Date | 29 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 6369-7-II,6369-7-II |
| Citation | 677 P.2d 770,36 Wn.App. 758 |
| Parties | Eugene B. TRUCANO, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIES, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Thomas J. Kraft, Seattle, for appellant.
Thornton Wilson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for respondent.
Eugene Trucano appeals the superior court's affirmance of the Department of Labor and Industries' termination of his employment on grounds of inefficiency.
Mr. Trucano was hired as an industrial hygienist in 1973 by the Department of Labor and Industries. Industrial hygienists are assigned to inspect work places to determine if they meet state standards governing employee exposure to hazardous conditions such as noise, toxic gases, and chemicals. The Department dismissed Mr. Trucano for inefficiency in August, 1978, because of his lack of productivity: during his employment he performed on average only 40 to 50 percent of the inspections done by all other hygienists. Despite employee evaluations and counseling by his supervisors, Mr. Trucano's rate of inspections actually declined to the point where he performed slightly in excess of one inspection per month while other hygienists averaged three or more. The primary reason for Mr. Trucano's lack of productivity was the excessive length and thoroughness of his reports, which occupied him in writing them to the extent that he was able to perform comparatively few inspections. He also persisted in doing consulting work, which was not one of his responsibilities.
Mr. Trucano appealed his dismissal to the Personnel Board, whose hearings officer found that he had been inefficient but recommended a reduction in the sanction to a ten-day suspension. He did not appeal the finding of inefficiency, but the Department appealed the reduced sanction to the full Personnel Board, which rejected the reduction in penalty and affirmed Mr. Trucano's dismissal by order of September 11, 1979. On his appeal to superior court, the dismissal was again affirmed.
Our review of the Personnel Board's decision comes under RCW 41.06.200(1), recodified effective May 19, 1981 as RCW 41.64.130(1). Mr. Trucano has appealed on the basis of two of the grounds allowed by that statute: (1)(b)--"Contrary to a preponderance of the evidence as disclosed by the entire record with respect to any specified finding or findings of fact," and (1)(e)--"Arbitrary or capricious."
Mr. Trucano argues that the Personnel Board's finding of inefficiency on his part is not supported by the evidence. For the reasons which follow, however, our review must be limited to considering whether the Board's action was arbitrary or capricious.
The Personnel Board is charged with hearing appeals from agency dismissal of employees. RCW 41.06.150. 1 One of the grounds for dismissal is inefficiency. WAC 356-34-010(2). On appeal from an agency's disciplinary action, including dismissal, the employee receives a hearing before the Board or, as in this case, a hearings officer. The officer enters findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a proposed order. WAC 356-34-085(2) provides that any party adversely affected by the hearings officer's recommended decision has 30 days to file a notice of appeal to the full Board. 2 The notice shall set forth any specific exceptions to the recommended decision and any other contentions to be considered by the Board. If no such appeal is filed, the recommended decision becomes final. Under WAC 356-34-085(3), hearings on appeal to the full Board are limited to the contentions set forth in the notice of appeal.
In this case, it was the Department and not Mr. Trucano who appealed the recommended decision to the full Board. He could have appealed the hearings officer's determination of his inefficiency, but did not. Even on appeal to this court, he has not assigned error to any specified finding of fact, as required by former RCW 41.06.200(1)(...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Department of Social and Health Services, No. 31970-5-II (WA 6/28/2005)
...those sections at the hearing. As such, the sections Williams cited are not properly before this court. Trucano v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 36 Wn. App. 758, 761, 677 P.2d 770 (1984). ...
-
Matthews v. State, No. 58514-2-I (Wash. App. 7/30/2007)
...JJ., Concur. 1. CR 56(c) 2. Trimble v. Wash. State Univ., 140 Wn.2d 88, 92, 993 P.2d 259 (2000). 3. Trucano v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 36 Wn. App. 758, 677 P.2d 770 (1984). 4. See Hayes v. Trulock, 51 Wn. App. 795, 805, 755 P.2d 830, review denied, 111 Wn.2d 1015 (1988); see also Adams v. ......
-
Fuller v. Employment Sec. Dept. of State of Wash.
...court. Adams v. Department of Social and Health Services, 38 Wash.App. 13, 14, 683 P.2d 1133 (1984); Trucano v. Department of Labor & Indus., 36 Wash.App. 758, 761, 677 P.2d 770 (1984); Wahler v. Department of Social & Health Services, 20 Wash.App. 571, 576, 582 P.2d 534 Fuller asserts that......
-
Adams v. Department of Social and Health Services
...novo on the record made at the Board level, applying the same standard of review as the superior court. Trucano v. Department of Labor & Indus., 36 Wash.App. 758, 677 P.2d 770 (1984); Wahler v. Department of Social and Health Services, 20 Wash.App. 571, 582 P.2d 534 (1978). The superior cou......