391 A.2d 341 | Me. | 1978
Plaintiff instituted a Rule 80B, M.R. Civ.P.,
We deny the appeal.
On June 14, 1976, legislation adopting the “Hay Plan ” (Plan)
On July 29,1976, the date this action was commenced, plaintiff was an unclassified employee of the Department of Mental Health and Corrections (Department). Pursuant to his then current employment contract and in accordance with the Department’s salary schedule, plaintiff received $204.00 per week. That salary level was apparently determined by plaintiff’s educational background and teaching experience.
On May 15, 1976, plaintiff received a master’s degree from the University of Maine at Portland-Gorham. In a letter to the Department’s Commissioner, dated July 14, 1976, plaintiff asserted that by the terms of the Department’s salary schedule, his receipt of a master’s degree warranted an increase in his weekly pay from $204.00 to $225.40. Defendant Mack, the Depart
Defendants argued, both at the trial level and now on appeal, that the Board’s exclusive jurisdiction regarding salary disputes denied the Superior Court subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff responded by arguing that because the conduct forming the basis of the action antedated the effective date of the Plan, the Board’s jurisdictional limits were inapplicable thus allowing plaintiff to seek review of the Department’s conduct in the Superior Court pursuant to Rule 80B, M.R. Civ.P.
Although we find both arguments to have at least some merit, neither is wholly dispositive of the issue before us.
Defendants’ position is well taken insofar as any salary disputes arising under the schedule embodied in the Plan are concerned. The jurisdictional grant
We, therefore, find that the Superior Court did not err in dismissing those portions of plaintiff’s complaint asserting a right to a salary increase after November 1, 1976.
Plaintiff’s contention that he was entitled to a stepped-up salary before November 1, 1976,
From a similar conclusion, plaintiff argues that he was entitled to Rule 80B, M.R.Civ.P., relief in the Superior Court.
We disagree.
34 M.R.S.A. § 1 (Supp.1975) authorizes the Department Commissioner to “appoint, subject to the Personnel Law such [other] employees as may be necessary” for the efficient operation of the Department. The Personnel Law
Plaintiff, by not pursuing his claim beyond the Commissioner’s office, failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. The trial Justice was, therefore, perfectly correct in his refusal to interfere in what was, in essence, an administrative matter. See Maine State Employees Association v. Williams, Me., 373 A.2d 258, 261 (1977); Stanton v. Trustees of St. Joseph College, Me., 233 A.2d 718 (1967).
Plaintiff, therefore, cannot prevail even with regard to a pre-Plan salary increase.
The entry must be:
Appeal denied.
Judgment affirmed.
. Rule 80B, M.R.Civ.P., states in pertinent part: when review by the Superior Court, whether by appeal or otherwise, of any action or failure or refusal to act by a governmental agency, including any department, board, commission, or officer, is provided by statute or is otherwise available by law, proceedings for such review shall ... be governed by these Rules of Civil Procedure.
. P. and S.L.1975, c. 147. The “Hay Plan ” was a major review of the whole classification and compensation system for state employees. The initial investigation resulting in the “Hay Plan ” was undertaken pursuant to legislative direction in P. and S.L.1975, c. 100.
. P. and S.L.1975, c. 147, part D, § 6.
. P. and S.L.1975, c. 147, evidences a statutory scheme whereby all employees would be apprised of the impending change in pay schedule at least by the Plan’s effective date of June 14, 1976. State employees would then have 30 days to institute any necessary appeals, hopefully allowing the Board to finish its work before the pay schedule was finally implemented, i. e. November 1, 1976.
.We express no opinion regarding the propriety of utilizing Rule 80B, M.R.CÍV.P., to gain review of the type of governmental action involved in this case.
Plaintiffs complaint alleged that the Department chose “to arbitrarily ignore its own salary schedule for unclassified service teachers and instead to pay a lesser rate of compensation than required under such schedule.” In light of the fact that this litigation was commenced before the effective date of the Plan and has continued beyond it, we view plaintiffs complaint to allege two distinct rights. First that he was entitled to a higher pay scale for the period ending November 1, 1976, and second, that he was entitled to the continuation of such pay scale thereafter.
. See note 2, supra.
. We express no opinion regarding the date plaintiff might be entitled to a pay increase, should he prevail in further administrative proceedings.
. 5 M.R.S.A. § 551 et seq. (1964) (as amended).