*1 ALASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
ASS’N, Appellant,
Alaska State
Ass’n, Intervenor, Alaska, Appellee.
STATE of S-3582,
Nos. S-3622.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
April 1992.
Rehearing May Denied
сlude that these are not sub- jects Accordingly, we affirm decisions of administra- agency tive and the court below. I Act, Pursuant to the State Personnel 39.25, “position the state must establish plan” employees classification for all state plan, covered the Act.1 such a Under position, job, assigned each or to a class duties, responsibilities, re- based and quirements training experience. requires Act Personnel also the state to posi- establish a for all classified pay plan, tions.2 job Under assigned salary ranges, are and then assigned salary ranges. rates are to the 1980s, During the the Alaska Em- (APEA) ployees Association was the collec- bargaining representative tive for two Jermain, Dunnagan Gasper, James A. & gaining units state Gen- —the Owens, Anchorage, for APEA. (GGU) eral Government Unit and the Su- Clocksin, pervisory Together, Wagstaff, Pope Don Cloсk- Unit. these two units & 7,500 sin, comprised more than Anchorage, for ASEA. 1,000 approximately different Gen., Strasbaugh, Atty. Kathleen Asst. Prior to the APEA fications. Gen., Juneau,
Douglas Baily, Atty. for the negotiated agreements state had for both State. permitted classify the state to units that Dougherty, Anchorage, Kevin for amicus jobs assign and to curiae Public Local 71. agreements pro- classifications.3 The also appeal procedure by APEA with an vided RABINOWITZ, C.J., Before: which the union could contest the state’s BURKE, MATTHEWS, COMPTON salary range decisions and classification MOORE, JJ. through assignments up Department to, ultimately, the Personnel Commissioner OPINION APEA of Administration. When the BURKE, Justice. negotiations the state entered into for new requires agreements replace expired This case that we decide wheth- those that plan proposed er the state’s classification for state on June APEA to alter jobs provisions covering and its the union’s of collec- contest classifications Em- assignments. particular, under Alaska’s Public In APEA wanted (PERA). ployment provide Relations Act We con- the new contracts to that all 39.25.150(1). per- ing, revising, administering pay plan. 1. AS The director of the state sonnel division of the executive branch of Id. board, government, personnel the state and the all share re- commissioner of administration sponsibility 3.Article of the General Government Unit establishing for classification; agreement covered Article 18 plan. Id. Supervisory agreement Unit was an iden- provision. tical 2. AS The director of responsibility preparing, alone has maintain- pay plan disputes classification and Act], would nel policy duty to through grievance be resolved procedure integrated maintain a system rational binding step. arbitration as its final сlassification. state, Consequently, held employer, stranger was no state had not committed an provision to the sort of unfair attempted APEA labor *3 practice bargain when it bring refused to bargaining over table in 1987. In- deed, proposed provision. APEA’s contract the state previously negotiated had bargaining agreements collective with two appealed APEA Agency’s decision to (Local Employees unions—Public Local 71 superior court. Alaska State Employ- 71) Safety Associa- (ASEA), ees Association as the current bar- (PSEA) tion provisions included es- gaining representative GGU, —that for the was sentially identical to pro- the one APEA permitted intervene; permit- PSEA was posed. Nonetheless, the state refused to ted to participate as amicus curiae. On proposed provision. consider APEA’s August 18, 1989, court, superior Judge III, John Bоsshard issued a Memorandum 1987, In June APEA filed with the State Opinion Judgment affirming Agen- (the Alaska Agency Labor Relations cy decision in the case. APEA and ASEA Agency) an practice complaint unfair labor appealed superior decision; court against complaint the state. The alleged, 71 Local has entered the case as amicus among things, other that classification curiae. plans salary range assignments were bargaining under II PERA, 23.40.070-.260, by AS and that re- fusing bargain subjects over applied those We have two different state had violated the duty bargain reviewing by standards when decisions ad good faith. agencies.4 ministrative ques “[W]here presented tions of law agen do not involve filing After the prac- the unfair labor cy expertise agency’s or where the special complaint, tice APEA and the state tenta- knowledge ized and experiencе would not tively approved new bargaining collective particularly probative be meaning as to the agreements. parties agreed also statute,” applied we have the inde prejudice dismiss charges without all pendent judgment standard. Tesoro Alas practice unfair complaint labor other than Pipe Co., ka Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Line those related 896, (Alaska 1987) (emphasis 746 P.2d 903 fication and assignment. According- removed). However, questions “where the ly, APEA and the fully briefed the implicate special at issue agency expertise and, remaining August 26, 1987, issues poli the determination of fundamental issued an Order and Decision in scope cies within the agency’s statu the case. The Agency concluded function,” tory applied we have the rational classifications and assign- basis standard. Id. permissive, ments were mandatory, but not subjеcts under PERA. This Normally, a choice between these two so, explained was Agency, particular standards of review carries im- 23.40.250(8)
because AS portance ruling ex- as a on the extent to [of PERA] cludes from properly the courts should defer to an gaining subjects, “general policies those agency’s particular type decision in a describing purposes the function case, however, present case. In the close public employer.” Those roles analysis include of the standard of review obligation the constitutional produce nothing practical em- would signifi- ployer to system, maintain a merit as cance. At the time APEA filed its unfair amplified in AS 39.25.010 practice complaint, 23.40.250(3) the Person- labor [of Agency’s 4. We Co., scrutinize the merits of the Pipe deci- Alaska Petroleum Co. v. Kenai Line 746 directly, superior sion without deferenсe to the (Alaska 1987). P.2d appellate court’s intermediate decision. Tesoro hours, agency and other terms and conditions the labor relations provided that 23.40.070(2). Such mat administering employment.” PERA responsible for bargain “mandatory subjects of ters are regard to the state and state Fed’n ing.” Community Colleges’ Alaska personnel AS 23.40.- the state board. was Teachers, University 250(3), SLA Local enacted ch. § (Alaska 1983) Alaska, 1299, 1305 by ex- Subsequently, governor, Teachers). (Federation Another section order, labor relations ecutive created a new “ and condi PERA ‘terms responsibilities “the agency whose combine the hours of Department employment’ means tions relations functions of the labor board, compensation fringe employment, the the De- of Administration benefits, employer’s personnel poli Labor, the railroad labor partmеnt of affecting conditions of agency, the cies agency into one state relations *4 general employees; does not mean agency, in the De- but relations Alaska labor describing pur policies the function Executive Order No. partment of Labor.” public employer.” AS 23.40.- alia, poses of a (1990)(amending, inter AS 23.40.- 250(8). 250(3)). to rule opportunity decline this We due either to the proper on the deference previously explained, the coordination As agency or to the deci- of a defunct decision pay plans for state of classification and agency that had no involve- sions of a new three-step process: employees consists of a us. ment with case before whatsoever (2) class; (1) assigned to a each each Instead, holding today that our we note pay range; and assigned class is to a either the inde- the same under
would be range. (3) assigned to each salaries are rational judgment standard or the pendent steps The before us is whether standard of review. basis process properly fall one and two of “general policies” clause of AS within the Ill do, 23.40.250(8).6 they state did If then the by re- practice unfair labor not commit an purpose The of PERA is to stated APEA on those fusing negotiate with right to share in give public employees “the 23.40.110(a)(5). subjects. See affecting decision-making process working AS 23.40.-0 wages and conditions.” A re Accordingly, specifically PERA 70.5 case, superior “negotiate In this quires public employers to with princi- that the merit concluded agreements with em court both and enter into written employer policy important wages, ple was the most ployee organizations on matters cooperative pоlicy”— promote state to harmonious 5. Section 23.40.070—"Declaration government in full: and its relations between by assuring public effec- joint protect the legislature ees and to finds that decision-mak- The ing way administering government. orderly operations is the modern tive and government. public employees If have been policies to be effectuated These right granted in the decision- to share (1) recognizing public working making affecting wages process organize for conditions, respon- they have become more gaining: exchange able to ideas and sive and better (2) employers negotiate requiring public operations with their adminis- information agreements with written enter into Accordingly, government is made trators. wages, employee organizations on matters legislature further finds more effective. hours, of em- and other terms and conditions positive legislation es- that the enactment of tablishing guidelines ployment; employment public for (3) merit-system principles maintaining way the best to harness and direct relations is among public employees. eager energies public employees determining their conditions a voice in agree step parties three— in this case 6. All work, provide a rational method of dealing of actual salaries —is stoppages, disputes and work meaning wages of AS a matter of 23.40.070(2), within strengthen principle where civil ser- and thus effect, a favorable vice is in and to maintain legisla- political and social environment. policy declares that it is the ture implicated categorize the classification of bar- plans. agree. gaining. We requires
The Alaska Constitution legislature system un to “establish a B govern der which the merit will apрeal The easier issue on relates to the employment persons by the State.” Const, statutory duty state’s under AS 39.25.- XII, Generally Alaska art. de § 150(1) plan. to establish a fined, principle requires the re cruitment, The unions do not contend that classifi- selection, and advancement of wages cation concerns polit or hours. The un- public employees “under conditions of contend, however, ions neutrality, equal opportunity, assign- ical and com do that the petition compe jobs necessarily on the of merit and ment of basis falls Vaughn, Principles tence.” R. Civil scope “personnel within the of the state’s (1976) 9.3[6], (quot at 9-27 Service Law policies affecting § conditions of ing Stanley, Doing to What Are Unions employees.” In re- Principle?, 31 Pub.Personnel the Merit sponse, argues the state classifica- (1970)). practice, In actual how Rev. 109 tion scoрe general falls within the of “the ever, complex “the merit is more policies describing the function and pur- ambiguous than the above definition poses public employer.” of a Id. We *5 legislature adopted reveals.” Id. Our the agree with the state. express purpose Personnel Act for the implementing constitutionally salary program begin the mandat A must with principle employment. designed ed merit in state AS carefully framework of de 39.25.010(a). Clearly recognizing the com scriptions “position and classifications—the task, pro plexity legislature of its our also plan” by classification mandated AS 39.25.- vided a detailed definition for the merit then, 150(1).8 plan, jobA classification is Thus, statute, principle.7 by merit integral part very “[t]he the foundation of an principle regu employment includes ... principle employment. in state the merit integrated salary рrograms lar on based bargaining provision that Any collective performed.” the nature of the AS work directly the classifi would affect state’s 39.25.010(b). The elements of the merit plan directly also affect the cation would course, principle’s “salary programs,” of preeminent general policy governing state plans and the are the classification employment administration. We are con plans adopted pursuant 39.25.150. AS 23.40.250(8)excludes that vinced that AS policy decision from the man sort basic understanding of the merit With datory subjects mind, listed in AS spe- in principle we turn now to the 23.40.070(2).9 cific that the unions would have us matters (3) permanent with in full: retention of 7.AS 39.25.010 adequacy their status on the basis of the (a) chapter It is the of this to estab- temporary performance, efforts of reasonable system personnel lish a administration per- inadequatе duration for correction in upon principle adapted to based and formance, cause; separation and for requirements of state to the end that (4) equal applicants and treatment persons qualified perform best the func- only regard ees to consideration within with employed, tions of the state will be principles employment; encouraged, an effective career service will be (5) employee’s of an selection and retention developed and maintained. political position influences. secure from (b) principle employment The merit in- “position,” plan job, first 8. A or classification following: cludes grouping together positions requires of all "a (1) recruiting, selecting, advancing em- responsibilities.” the basis of duties ability, ployees on the basis of their relative 39.25.150(1)(A). skills, knowledge, including opеn consid- qualified applicants notes, for initial generally eration of jurisdictions other As the state See, openings; e.g., agree here. In re with our conclusion Inc., (2) regular integrated salary programs Employees' Hampshire, based Ass'n New (1980). performed; on the nature of the work 120 N.H. 422 A.2d legislature that the intended the state to C bargain collectively public employee come then to the more troublesome We unions over the actual determination of sal- primary problem aspect of this case. The ary amounts certain classified statutory language in emerges from the However, the statute does will receive. not charges the Personnel Act that the director legisla- answer the whether personnel responsibility for creat- ing personnel provide give public employee that “shall for” ture also intended to rules maintenance, unions the demand
(2) preparation, revi- by wage range assignments or sion and administration director of a for all classes. partially exempt in the classified and ser- provisions of the Act Other Personnel (A) vices; plan shall be based bring problem closer to focus. For (B) upon position plan; classification noted, example, legisla- as we have provide shall for fair and reasonable ture’s own definition of the merit rendered, compensation for services “regular integrated salary pro- includes like like reflect the 39.25.010(b)(2) grams.” (emphasis add- work; (C) amended, may approved, or be ed). salary program pro- A is the schedule disapproved by legislature regular by integrating applicable job duced session; special pay plan is or after the plan applicable pay with the effect, wage payment 39.25.150(1) (2). Thus, plan. See AS & a state covered not be made to aspect pay plan— arguably, the first payment unless the chapter accordance with this adopted chapter under this or un- embodies, rules actually practical classes— form, payment less the accordance with a preeminent policy the state’s of es- *6 bargaining] agreement
valid [collective
tablishing
system personnel
a
of
adminis-
entered into in accordance with AS 23.40
according
principle.
to the merit
tration
[PERA]....
Accordingly,
agree with the state that
we
39.25.150(2).
described in
bargaining
assignment
over
of
statute,
course,
this subdivision of the
of
ranges
necessarily im-
salary
classes
encompasses steps two and three of the
pinges
principle,
gen-
upon the merit
which
general
wage
classification and
establish-
subject of
erally
mandatory
is not a
process:
ment
after
classification is gaining.
done,
pay plan assigns salary ranges
hand,
agree
the other
we also
On
assigns ac-
the individual classes and then
assignment
salary
of
the unions that
figures
salary range.
tual dollar
to each
ranges
undeniably impinges
parties
agree
All
here
that the
upon
“compensation
the issue of
... and
figures
salary
of actual dollar
to the
personnel policies affecting
employer’s
“wages”
is a
a
matter of
and thus
employees,”
conditions of
mandatory subject
bargaining.
See AS
23.40.250(8),
usually
mandatory
23.40.070(2).
only question
is whether
Thus,
subjects
bargaining.
on the issue
step
mandatory subject
two also is a
bargaining
salary range assignments, employee
under AS
governmental
substantially
interests
over-
with,
begin
find the final clause of
To
we
lap.
precisely
overlapping
It
of in-
(2) ambiguous. The
subdivision
clause al-
recent-
recognized
terests that we
when we
controlling
ludes to the
effect a collective
ly
problem categorizing the
called the
bargaining agreement might
on the
question.”
issue “a
difficult
close and
salary wage payment
actual
or
a covered
Ass’n,
Safety
State v.
employee may
Certainly
state
receive.
(Alaska 1990) (Public
language
reinforces the
conviction
unions,
contrast,
brought
single
argument
have not
classification is a
authority
support
subject
bargaining.
to our attention in
of their
Ass’n).10
negotiation
Safety Employees
public
ation and
in
education
employment).
general,
wrote,
In
we
“a
course,
respects,
Of
some
the ov
susceptible
matter is more
bargaining
erlap
employer
interests
the more it deals with the economic inter-
actually may
on this issue
benefit
employees
ests of
and the less it concerns
emрloyment administration. As we ex professional goals and methods.” Id. at
plained
PSEA:
course,
Subsequently,
we held that
employees
are as familiar with PERA establishes the distinction between
qualifications
their
as their mandatory
permissive subjects
of bar-
They may
administrators are.
be able to
gaining
bargain
and makes refusal to
over
'
make a valuable
contribution
prac-
an unfair labor
process
assigning positions
Teachers,
tice. Federation
669 P.2d at
respect, giving public
In this
adapt
1305. We now
the Kenai I bal-
employees
in matters like
voice
ancing
“negotiability”
test for
to the Fed-
range classification seems consistent
eration
Teachers division between man-
purposes
with the
Act.
[Personnel]
datory
permissive subjects
bargain-
ing
cases,
one,
such as this
where the
Consequently,
Id. at 1286.
government employer’s constitutional, stat-
salary rаnges clearly
per-
should be a
utory,
public policy prerogatives
signifi-
missive
The state
cantly overlap
public employees’
collec-
definitely
give
employees
should
its
a voice
bargaining prerogatives.
We conclude
salary range assignments, by
susceptible
that a matter is more
to cate-
assignments,
when the state con-
gorization
mandatory subject
aas
of bar-
siders such interaction beneficial to the
gaining the more it deals
economic
larger
public employment.
mission of
interests of
and the less it con-
Nevertheless,
the final
is whether
employer’s general policies.
cerns the
power
unionized
should have the
bargain
to constrain the state to
collective-
apply
When we
this test
ly
princi-
over matters related to the merit
case,
present
conclude that
we
ple.
satisfactory
We believe that a
answer
cannot be a
question emerges
interpret
to this
we
when
present sys
under the state’s
controlling
light
statutes in
of our own
implementing
“regular, integrat
tem of
its
prior
proper scope
cases on the
Admittedly,
programs.”
ed
*7
bargaining under PERA.
strong
economic interests
Borough
salary ranges
In Kenai Peninsula
in the
to clas
School
Ass’n,
However,
countervailing
Dist. v. Kenai Peninsula Educ.
572 sifications.
(Alaska 1977)(Kenai I),
is, by
policy
specific
P.2d 416
we enun-
concern at work here
Act,
general balancing
weighti
provision
ciated a
test for deter-
of the Personnel
mining
public
employer’s
whether an issue of
in
edu-
est one
the state
trust. See
Const,
XII,
6;
negotiable
bargain-
cation was
in collective
Alaska
art.
AS 39.25.010.
§
ing
similarly specific prerogative
between a teachers’ union and the
exists on
local No
(medi-
Indeed,
government under AS 14.20.550-.610
the unions’ side of the balance.
10. In Public
534,
Minnesota,
(Minn.
Safety Employees
Ass’nwe also not
Univ.
353 N.W.2d
539
jurisdictions
1984) (if
ed that
very helpful
employment
other
are not
“[d]ecisions
condition of
term or
many
because
states have more-
managerial
employer’s
policies "are so ‘inex
addressing
provisions
question.”
detailed
negotiation
tricably interwoven’ that
of the issue
Indeed,
express mandate to diffuse, entitlement general, limited more argued Agen APEA also before the important in bargain our balance cy, argues appeal, and now that even if competing interests here. assign classification and here, important to our decision how- Also ment are not of collec ever, bargain- the collective is the fact that bargaining, the state still must submit employees may ing representatives of state disputes binding over those issues arbi bargain demand that the state over disagree. Binding tration. arbitration We assigned to the state- actual scales absolutely is not available when the matter Thus, employ- designed salary ranges. dispute is not a influence, at ees do have some Kenai Peninsula Educ. See level, shape the most concrete final Borough v. Kenai Peninsula School Ass’n so, pay plans. If this not of their were (Alaska Dist., 569 & n. employees’ assign- interest in the then the 1981). increase ment of would might outweigh
markedly and the state’s agreements APEA's principle, interest in the merit insofar provision mаndatory contained no arbi inheres of sala- pay range tration of classification ry ranges classes. Accord AS 23.- grant (purpose 40.070 of PERA is to assignment disputes, and no basis exists “the to share in the deci- implication remedy. of such a for the See sion-making process affecting wages and (de supra accompanying text note 3 through conditions” collective bar- scribing bargained-for appeals pro APEA’s 39.25.150(2) (Personnel gaining); AS Act job classification and cedure for the state’s approves wage payments determination of decisions). salary range assignment Under according bargaining agree- to collective case, state’s actions the facts of this PERA). ments entered into under itsOn related to classification and face, however, mandatory right to range assignments are not to bind gain step by the final the state ing arbitrаtion. integrates its classification and affirming superior court decision plans currently provides unionized *8 and State Labor Relations Order adequate exercise of the ees granted No. 110 is AFFIRMED. bargaining prerogative them AS Decision 5). 11. The declaration of policy expressly (quoted supra PERA AS 23.40.070 Moreover, in full note distinct, a mandate to coordinate four includes the final subsection of 23.40.070 competing, and in some sense interests: importance principle the merit reiterates the (3). Thus, legislature public employment. The positive ... finds that the enactment of Id. at no- legislation establishing guidelines for imply state or that where does 23.40.070 way public employment relations is the best employee organizing energies public and direct the to harness system integral parts shall be of a merit eager employees a work, to have voicе in determin- contrary, employment. On the PERA’s declara- ing provide their conditions of a always princi- policy tion of refers to the merit dealing disputes rational method for with important, independent policy ple that as an stoppages, strengthen prin- work the merit rights employee rights if those con- limit effect, ciple where civil service is in and to principle. the merit flict with political and envi- maintain a favorable social ronment. COMPTON, Justice, with whom They ties. have common objective- other WITZ, joins, dissenting RABINO C.J. ly determinable characteristics considered part. necessary perform job. this The em- ployer job determines that this will be titled The court concludes that the “Operator Thus, I.” in order position to assume classifications the responsibilities duties and Opera- is not a of an I, I tor agree do not an with this con- must have the eduсation clusion and training therefore dissent. In all other and other previously identified respects agree I the court. characteristics which employer now specifies in a description. Applying I agree that constitutionally mandat- procedure this to all within all system,1 ed merit and the State Personnel departments will result in a number (Personnel Act)2 it, Act implements different classifications. precedence take Employ- (PERA)3 ment Relations Act to the extent The step development second of the there is a conflict between them. plan. pay It is based on the classifica- However, the court has not any articulated tion provide and “shall for fair and conflict between system and Per- compensation reasonable for services ren- sonnel Act on the one hand and PERA on dered, and reflect principle of likе other, any apparent. nor is for like work.” AS An examination steps of the to be taken Development of involves 39.25.150(1) (2) under AS necessary several point considerations. At some a understanding for an of the case. The first identified, ie., wage for each must be step development is the position (job) of the wage what Operator paid? should an I be plan. “(A) This entails a Presumably employer will refer grouping together of all into wage available regarding wages paid data classes on the basis of responsi- duties and employees, other perhaps pri- bilities; assigning] (B) appropriate an [and employees, vate comparable employ- title, description of the respon- duties and By process ment. “fair and reason- sibilities, training experience qualifica- compensation able for services rendered” tions, and necessary specifications other should be Wage comparability established. positions.” for each class of AS 39.25.- applied also must be in order to effectuate 150(1).4 principle of “like for like work.” example, Department For within A cer- employees, employer tain who and union determine the have had similar edu- on-the-jobtraining, ranges cation or jobs available into which each roughly equivalent responsibili- duties and ultimately placed.5 fication If will be XII, 1. Article very section 6 of the Alaska Constitu- essence of the State’s function in provides: legislature tion "The the execution of shall establish a these constitutional and stat- system utory description under which the merit mandates is the of the work will govern performed, employment persons by to be knowledge, the determination State.” skills and abilities of necеssary perform such work and the allo- purpose 2. AS 39.25.010 identifies the pay purposes. cation of that work for State Personnel Act as follows: disputed freely negoti- 5.It is not chapter It is the of this to establish bargaining process. ated in the collective APEA system personnel administration based following example: upon adapted negotiate The State and the union over the requirements per- of the state to the end that appropriate deciding schedule qualified perform sons best *9 to the functions 16, "pure” wage employee, e.g., Range for an employed, of the state will be and that an $2,702 $2,895 month, Step per A salaries are encouraged, effective career service will be month, $2,518 per per month. Determin- developed and maintained. ing particular employee’s compensation re- quires matching wage Range within the 3. AS 23.40.070-.260. employee's Schedule to the Presumably classification. In its rebuttal brief wage before the Alaska Labor 4. data which are used to Agency, Relations compensation” state declared: establish "fair and reasonable 1254 public employer,” and therefore Depart- pose[ of a Operator I in
job ] 23.40.250(8)’sdefini- Department B does not fall within AS Examiner III in ment A and duties, and conditions of in terms of tion of “terms roughly equivalent argu- these of the state’s qualifications, ment.” The essence responsibilities complete together denying the state grouped ment is that should be classifications range.6 will assignment job to a classification decisions purpose of control over for the job system7 to all classifi- since other- procedure this undermine the merit Applying emergence of a bargain to with the result the state will hаve cations will wise job classification placement approximately of different number union over the ranges. hierarchy A 1,000 groupings job different classifications across If there are ten Further, according established. ranges ranges. will be multiple salary they may be denominated groupings, state, such PERA to the stated ranges are through X. These Ranges I principles among “merit-system maintain ranges.” “salary to as commonly referred 23.40.070(3), indi- employees,” AS legislature to clear intent of the cates the development of The court holds that job classification deci- immunize the state’s plan is a matter that is job classification mandatory obli- sions from subject of collective bar- not a gations. However, of the agree. I one gaining. components is integral two proceeds along sim- analysis The court’s employee’s job clаssi- placement of the that lines. The court notes ilar salary range by the particular in a fication 39.25.010(b)(2) system in AS embod- defined how This determines personnel director. salary programs.” “regular integrated ies receive as specific will much a Op. at 1250. salary program A “is the that this also is wages. The court holds integrating appli- produced by schedule mandatory subject of collective bar- not a appli- plan with the job classification cable gaining. disagree. I (2).” 39.25.150(1) & See plan. cable Bor- said in Kenai Peninsula This court declares that “ar- Id. From this the court District v. Kenai Peninsula ough School pay plan— aspect of the guably, the first Association, P.2d Education ranges job salary 1977) (Kenai I), (Alaska that “a matter is embodies, practical actually classes — it susceptible to the more more form, policy of es- preeminent the state’s economic interests of deals with administration accord- tablishing personnel professional goals the less it concerns Id. Reasoning ing principle.” assignment of Except for and methods.” arguable, declared to be from what it has ranges, nothing figures salary dollar bargaining over opines then the court interests of em- the economic deals with ranges job classifi- job assignment of ployees more than impinges upon the “necessarily cations salary ranges. fications to those it concludes Id. Thus principle.” merit job salary ranges to assignment of argues that The state subject to collective classifications is not “gener- is a classifications pur- bargaining.8 describing the function and polic[y] al response simply is that be- suited. The state’s for each classifi- and “like for like work" negotiated subject permitted to be groupings it this cause be used to establish cation will also required subject to be that the does not mean classifications reasoning be flaw- negotiated. The state's the Alaska Labor its rebuttal brief before However, 6. In points incident when it to no less. negotiation Agency, de- the state declared: “As Relations subject, submission of earlier, analyzed and as- arbitration, scribed each binding "im- has groups signed of classifi- to a classification pinged" system. Neither does the on the merit pay range.” assigned to a cations court. acknowledged the court v. Pub 8.As Local 71 Amicus Curiae Public in State Association, negotiated assignment Safety Employees lic points has out that it (Alaska 1990), jurisdic decisions in other since classifications supporting Labor Relations impasse the Alaska binding an re- tions arbitration where *10 at its Having already argu- arrived ultimate underscores the flaw state’s conclusion, then acknowledges the court which it ment and the error to leads the assignment that of classifications to court. salary ranges impinges on the also issue of 23.40.070(2)requires Alaska Statute that leads the compensation. This court to re- “public employers negotiate ... with and salary range mark that “on the issue of agreements employ- enter into written assignments, governmental and employee organizations ee wages, on matters of substantially overlap.” Op. interests at hours, and and other terms conditions of of “overlap employer 1251. The and em- turn, 23.40.250(8) employment.” In de-
ployee actually may issue interests on this employ- fines “terms and of conditions public employment benefit administra- ment” employment, to mean “the hours of assignment the Consequently, tion. ... of compensation fringe benefits, the salary rаnges permis- should a clearly be employer’s policies the affecting subject bargaining.” Op. at sive of the employees; conditions on an overlapping The court’s reliance general policies but does not mean the de- mandatory interests to exclude from collec- scribing purposes function of a bargaining assignment clas- public employer.” impact economic The on ranges misplaced. is salary sifications to employee’s wages compensation by an employer’s employees’ interests assignment employee’s job of an classifica- greater always overlap, will to a or lesser tion to one rather than anoth- degree. significant er is both and obvious. APEA following example: assignment
It must noted that of dol- be instance, For if the classifica- figures ranges, lar salary to the other intе- “Accounting tion Technician III” is as- gral component pay plan required by signed (Step A) a new 39.25.150(2), Range hire impinge not does $2,702 paid per is month. If the classifi- principle. merit does not claim Range 17, Instead, assigned is that cation new it does. state acknowl- $2,895 per month; hire if edges figures will receive assignment dollar benchmark, Range salary ranges ‘wages’ 15 is the “is a and thus matter a $2,518. wages employee’s monthly are mandatory bargaining.” subject Op. at If III a Accounting an Technician has 1250. The court not does either greater responsibility level of than an or its analysis state’s conclusion re- II, Accounting then that fact garding Technician propriety of dol- wages paid. is reflected in the figures lar argu- I the state’s persuaded The state’s differentiation between as- am not affecting assignment signment ment classifications to that decisions salary ranges ranges figures of dollar public employ- a “general policies” Neither significant. is within I legislative text of the Act nor its er’s control. conclude that Personnel exclusive hours, implies “wages, terms and history presumes any differenti- and other condi- processes. employment” tions under AS 23.40.- ation between these two This Agency’s 397 A.2d 885] Relations Bd. N.H. [118 conclusion that (N.H.1978). Similarly, a New York classifications to ry subject not mandato court very helpful. are not of court held that classification provisions Many detailed states have more ad be- not a dressing legislature the issue: specifically declared cause the salary grades "allocations and reallocations example, upon very specific For based service of the in the classified system exception merit to the definition of the conditions of state are not terms аnd ment_" employment, terms and conditions New Newman, 71 A.D.2d Evans v. Hampshire Supreme Court has held that most (1979). subjects jurisdiction 423 N.Y.S.2d within of the Person- Commission, including salary nel tion, at 1286. classifica- prior agrees its negotiable. Employees’ This court assessment. are not Employee Op. Hampshire Ass’n v. New Pub. Labor at 1251 n. 10. *11 1256 public employment.” Op. at 1251 070(2), of em- sion and “terms and conditions of added). 23.40.250(8), clearly (emphasis
ployment” under AS
to
assignment
job
classifications
include
figures
salary
Assignment of dollar
to
mandatory
salary ranges, and thus are
sub-
“wages”
ranges is a matter of
and thus a
Seemingly
jects
bargaining.
bargaining.
mandatory subject of collective
also,
accepting the
court does
for in
salary ranges, they
important
as are
Yet
declares that
argument,
unions’
the court
meaningless
job classifications are
are
until
salary ranges
to
“assignment of
Nonetheless,
assigned
them.
the court
to
upon the issue
undeniably impinges
step
development
in the
that this
concludes
employer’s poli-
‘compensation ...
of the
is not a
affecting
working conditions
cies
bargaining, only permissive
a
”
employees.’ Op. at 1250.
bargaining.
In
subject of collective
so con-
necessarily determines
cluding,
decisions do not con-
the court
Job
goals
assignment
methods
classifications to
professional
cern
matters,
“wages,
such as
way
salary ranges
as do those
is not a matter of
same
hours,
and evaluation
of class size
and other terms and conditions of
determination
administrators,
held non-
“[e]mployers
that the court
free
employment.”
Since
are
I,
their integrated salary pro- may “regular tion to They administrators are. be able focuses, the grams” the court to the on which make a valuable contribution includes “selection and re- assigning positions merit process of employee’s position secure giving public tention of an respect, In this political influences.” AS 39.25.- matters like from employees a voice in 010(b)(5). individuals who are Where range classification seems consistent employed in political identifia- purposes of the Act. disfavor with the [Personnel] classifications, potential exists ble Unfortunately, the court then silences unilaterally of a state abuse public employees the voice of these same reassign job classification to a lower by immediately declaring that range. job classifications ” responsibility of classification is the “permissive collec- Job should be personnel, subject ap- definitely the director of “The state proval of the commissioner administra- give its a voice should by bargaining personnel over as- tion and board. range assignments, comprised of three board signments, when the state considers such more than two of whom larger persons, mis- not interaction beneficial *12 political party. They be from the same by governor
appointed and confirmed legislature. hand, On the other responsibility is the of the director alone. AS
legislature,' regular session, special or amend, approve disapprove
pay plan. signifi- Id. This difference is
cant greater power because of the vested person, personnel,
in one the director of
preparing, maintaining, revising and admin-
istering pay plan. opinion,
At the outset of its the court
acknowledged stated “[t]he give
PERA public employees is to ‘the decision-making share
process affecting wages con- ” Op. Concluding ditions.’ at 1248. classifications to only permissive is a matter for
collective repudiation is a
sharing any sense of the word.
I would reverse supe- the decision of the court, upheld
rior Alaska Labor Re-
lations Order and Decision No.
and direct that the case be remanded to the
ALRA with directions that the em-
ployer be ordered to enter into with the unions over classifications to CLAUSON, Appellant,
James F. CLAUSON,
Dorothy Appellee. F.
No. S-4150.
Supreme Court of Alaska.
8,May