81 A.3d 167
Pa. Commw. Ct.2013Background
- Dubaskas was employed by PCI, a Department bureau, as a CIM 1 at SCI-Rockview.
- On June 10, 2010, the Department offered CM06, Level 4, salary of $52,303 and credited prior experience for seniority.
- Dubaskas accepted and began employment on June 28, 2010, based on negotiated terms including seniority and pay.
- A statewide CIM 1 pay freeze from 2010 to July 1, 2012 halted pay raises and seniority increases for him.
- In July 2012, a revised pay scale changed to a 28-step system; Dubaskas was placed in CM06, Step 2, but continued to receive $52,303, while others received raises and seniority credit.
- Dubaskas alleged this reduced his accrued and future seniority, pay, and benefits, constituting a breach of his employment contract, in Count I, and a statutory/regulatory violation under 4 Pa.Code § 99.52 in Count II; the Board dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Board have jurisdiction over Count I. | Dubaskas argues the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over contract claims against the Commonwealth, including employment contracts. | Respondents contend employment contracts are excluded from the Code’s contract definition and thus outside Board jurisdiction. | Board lacks jurisdiction over Count I. |
| Does the Board have jurisdiction over Count II. | Dubaskas asserts a breach of statute/regulation (Section 99.52) entitlement to damages. | Respondents maintain Board cannot hear statutory/regulatory claims not grounded in contract. | Board lacks jurisdiction over Count II. |
| Should Data-Quest and Hanover control this interpretation of Board jurisdiction. | Dubaskas relies on Data-Quest and Hanover to expand Board jurisdiction beyond the strict Code definitions. | Respondents urge that Data-Quest and Hanover are distinguishable and do not override the employment-contract exclusion here. | Data-Quest and Hanover are distinguishable; they do not compel Board jurisdiction over employment contracts here. |
| What is the proper interpretation of Section 1724(a)(1) and Section 103 in this context. | Section 1724(a)(1) grants exclusive Board jurisdiction for contracts entered into with the Commonwealth, possibly beyond Section 103's definition. | Section 103 excludes employment agreements from 'services,' thus not satisfying the contract definition for Board jurisdiction. | Code definitions in Section 103 apply; employment agreements are excluded, so Section 1724(a)(1) does not confer jurisdiction here. |
Key Cases Cited
- Data-Quest, Inc. v. Dept. of Health, 972 A.2d 74 (Pa.Cmwlth.2009) (quasi-contract claims not barred by 2002 Act; Board has quasi-contract jurisdiction)
- Hanover Ins. Co. v. State Workers’ Insurance Fund, 35 A.3d 849 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (Board retains exclusive jurisdiction over certain contracts against the Commonwealth)
- Brown v. Taylor, 494 A.2d 29 (Pa.Cmwlth.1985) (employment contract claims cited, pre-2002 amendments; distinguishable here)
- Pennsylvania Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. v. Dep’t of Gen. Servs., 932 A.2d 1271 (Pa. 2007) (contract definition and context; introductory clause in Section 103)
- Shovel Transfer & Storage, Inc. v. Simpson, 565 A.2d 1153 (Pa. 1989) (board forum for contract-related claims; cautions against diminishing jurisdiction)
- Scientific Games International, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue, 66 A.3d 740 (Pa. 2013) (sovereign immunity and Board jurisdiction limited; nonmonetary claims contexts)