*1 ROEBER State Institutional ERNEST Employees Hours, Equal Plaintiffs MONTANA, OF DEPARTMENT v. STATE Respondents, OF INSTITUTIONS Montana Appellants. Center, Defendants No. 89-446. 29, Briefs March Submitted on 1990. July Decided 1990. Rehearing Aug. Denied 1990. 424. 795 P.2d *2 Institutions, Helena, Nick A. for defendants and Rotering, Dept, appellants. Butte,
Leonard J. for Haxby, plaintiffs respondents. JUSTICE BARZ delivered the of the Court. Opinion Montana, The State of of Institutions and Montana Center from the of the District Court Developmental District, for the Fifth Judicial Jefferson County, granting respondents’ for We reverse and remand. petition declaratory judgment. are of the Montana Center in Respondents employees Developmental Boulder. The Center is Developmental operated by Department Institutions. There are both union and non-union at the employees Center. Union are to a collective subject from which as non-union bargaining agreement respondents, were hired from within the employees, Respondents exempt. Center, bid, Center, and from outside the Each of application. manual received and other literature respondents personnel terms of describing general employment. June, 1987,
Prior to all Center who worked hour personnel eight June, for shift were their half-hour lunch break. In paid management notified both union and would be non-union employees they required to work an hour with an day half-hour lunch break eight unpaid effective June The grievance 1987. filed successful and restored their half-hour lunch break paid in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement. filed a non-union grievance
Respondents asserting management terminated their half-horn:lunch and increased breaks wrongfully paid their denied A three hours. this working Management grievance. member committee held: information,
“It would seem that additional and regulations policies made have on this matter were not significant bearing the committee. available to fact, not, or is whether there is
“It cannot be determined i.e., document; job as a result of said contractural relationship [sic] ...” announcement to Director of Institutions. referred the
The committee The Director found as follows: of the Director to holdings
“It is decision accept failed to sustain the committee which indicated that grievants affirms management’s burden of proof essentially position. of the committee “The decision Director accepts upholds ’’ grievance. which essentially supports management’s position their asserting then filed a for petition judicial Respondents to retroactive and reinstatement of the half-hour right pay matter, ruled on filed break. Before the District Court respondents for relief identical a motion judgment seeking then for in the for review. prayed petition judicial to allow an amended respondents petition. file stipulated an amended review and motion filed Respondents petition count I were the Contained within claims declaratory judgment. in their review and within count originally asserted petition II those set forth in the motion for original declaratory judgment. Court, counsel, converted on hearing stipulation *3 on the matter. amended to a In respondents’ hearing petition pretrial its fact and law filed oral findings following conclusions of the District Court found that: argument, counsel, oral “By judicial stipulation petition 8-101, to converted action to pursuant judgment § MCA, et seq. rights determine the jurisdiction legal parties
“[I]t [had] Declaratory under the of the Uniform Act Judgments broad provisions statutes, and counsel for both embraced the cited that by parties review of administrative decision agree[d] [was] moot.” no between the aside
There is record of oral stipulation from District Court’s finding.
The lower ordered to reinstate the paid court appellants their lunch breaks half-hour to reimburse unpaid respondents its June of the District Court substituted since 1987. Appellants argue administrative maker inferring for that of the decision by upon in the record. We note the findings facts not clearly paucity Lower courts rely may the District Court could review. remand review for petitions further proceedings pursuant 2-4-704, MCA. § issue on concerns the dispositive standard of review applied District Court in by the decision reversing of the Director fact, Institutions. The lower court’s above, findings as set forth conform to the of the Uniform spirit Act Declaratory Judgments codified at 27-8-101 et 27-8-102, MCA, MCA. seq., Section makes evident the and nature of the purpose Act: remedial;
“This is declared to be chapter its is to settle and purpose to afford relief from uncertainty with insecurity respect rights, status, relations; and other and it is to be legal construed liberally administered.”
District courts have less significantly latitude review of upon judicial administrative decisions in contested cases pursuant Montana Administrative Procedure Act (MAPA), Title Section MCA. Section provides:
“The review shall be conducted the court without a and shall jury be confined to the record.
“The court not may substitute its judgment for that of the as agency to the of the evidence on weight of fact. The court questions affirm the decision of the or remand the case for agency further The court proceedings. may reverse or the decision if modify substantial rights have been appellant because: prejudiced
“(a) the administrative inferences, conclusions, findings, or decisions are:
“(i) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; “(ii) in excess of the statutory authority agency; “(in) made unlawful upon procedure; “(iv) law; affected other error of “(v) reliable, erroneous in view of clearly probative, substantial record; evidence on the whole
“(vi) or or arbitrary capricious characterized abuse of discretion or discretion; unwarranted clearly exercise fact,
“(b) decision, issues essential findings to the were not upon made although requested.” *4 contend the
Appellants review of the administrative decision was not moot and therefore review of that decision pursuant to MAPA was proper. courts not overturn agency substantial, decisions unless credible evidence a of supporting finding fact is v. lacking. Hammerquist Sec. Employment Div. the Montana of
441 349, (1988), 347, Labor and Indus. Dep’t. 230 Mont. P.2d 535, 536. District courts have discretion in greater reviewing conclusions of law because of an enhanced ability interpret law the facts. v. apply City Billings Billings Firefighters Local (1982), 421, 430, No. 521 200 Mont. 651 P.2d 632. Administrative conclusions of law must be district upheld by courts unless constitute an they abuse of discretion. City Billings, P.2d at 632.
Clearly, District Court in the instant case broader possessed remedial powers by under the proceeding Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act than had it subjected decision to agency to MAPA. pursuant
We hold the District Court under the improperly proceeded Uniform Declaratory Act in Judgments this case.
“The purpose declaratory relief is to liquidate uncertainties and controversies which result in might future and to litigation adjudicate rights who have not otherwise been given opportunity have those rights However, determined. it is not the true purpose the declaratory substitute for provide other regular actions. ‘‘Other have jurisdictions denied the declaratory judgment where by statute or otherwise from the actions of administrative (Citations bodies exists.” omitted.)
Matter (1976), 437, 444, Dewar 169 Mont. 548 P.2d 153-54. Pursuant to § plaintiffs may bring action to challenge However, of a rule. validity 2-4-102(10), MCA, forth the sets rules to that section: subject “ ‘Rule’ standard, means each agency regulation, or statement of general applicability or implements, law or interprets, prescribes policy or describes the organization, or procedures, practice of an requirements agency. term includes the amendment or of a rule repeal but does not include: prior “(a) statements the internal concerning only of an and not agency or affecting available private rights procedures to the public;
“(e) rules the state implementing classification personnel plan, state wage salary statewide plan, budgeting accounting system;
442 the case at in instant is
The internal issue personnel policy the of excluded from this specifically purview conspicuously case, remedy In where had a from section. this respondents decision, granted. the administrative relief improperly to MAPA. We reverse and remand for review pursuant be would to encumber the The effect of the Court’s ruling Center, and the Montana Institutions eternal, Wesbter’s everlasting; with a sempiternal [adj.: perpetual; 1986)] ed. Dictionary (2nd College policy New World personnel the this We affected to note facility. policy change brought unique conformance with the State classification codified plan into employees 2-18-201, the union now Although at et MCA. seq., §§ their breaks is during policy subject change We their collective periodic renegotiation bargaining agreement. not which has the effect holding any will affirm a prohibiting in this change policy.
Reversed and remanded. HARRISON, and JUSTICES
CHIEF JUSTICE TURNAGE WEBER, andMcDONOUGH concur. SHEEHY,
JUSTICE dissenting: The in this case to the Montana approach majority in sense of (MAPA) every Administrative Procedure Act is purblind blind; vision, the word or [purblind: lacking insight partly Dictionary (1981)]. Webster’s understanding. Collegiate New well to find a from remedy by appeal see majority enough single 2-4-704, fail to MCA. see They an administrative decision under § in MAPA for declaratory that an valid is provided equally 2-4-506, MCA. under judgments
That section provides: or rules. Declaratory validity application “2-4-506. judgments or an action for (1) A rule be declared invalid inapplicable may rule or its threatened if it is found that the declaratory judgment with with or threatens interfere or interferes or impairs application or legal rights privileges plaintiff. impair action on the rule also declared invalid in such “(2) A be may or capricious that the rule was with grounds arbitrary adopted evidenced by statute as authorizing disregard purpose documented intent. legislative not be whether or A rendered
“(3) declaratory judgment has plaintiff requested agency pass validity or upon the rule in ...” applicability question (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, MAPA, under a district court not has but only authority is given declaratory authority determine as to the legal question validity rules of state applicability government agencies. district court has the invalid, to declare the rule power or that its case, as in application, is invalid.
There are no fact issues in really this case. There is not any dispute from the State or that, 1, its 1987, to June agency managers prior non-union here worked an 8-hour shift which included a half-hour lunch On or about period. June State letter *6 directed that unilaterally these non-union employees would lose the lunch and that an paid period additional half-hour work would period be added to their schedules.
The issues, issues that are only remain legal since the are facts not in The dispute. employees maintain that have an contract they for implied the paid of the period. position State from the record and from its brief is that and the of the State policies contained in its management memos and handbook are the employee rules which the govern issue. It was most for the appropriate Court to the regard matter as one for declaratory and to act under the jurisdiction specifically to it MAPA given by under § 2-4-506, MCA, above.
Not did the District only Court properly consider the proceed legal issue here under its of power in declaratory judgment the provided Act, but the State recognized and in power, stipulated writing the court’s consideration of the issue under its legal jurisdiction: ‘‘Come now the hereto and and hereby that the stipulate agree petitioners shall be [employees] allowed to file an amended in petition order to incorporate petition further relief and the court authorizing ’’ to issue an order allowing of said amended filing petition.
Let us review the that procedure occurred in this case. On September 16, 1987, Ernest F. Roeber filed a on behalf of himself grievance and all situated similarly non-union of the Montana Center at Boulder. Development His was that he grievance and his fellow non-union had an contract with express implied the State under which the shift work-day comprised eight-hour which included a half-hour lunch Under period. established procedures a three-member committee Department, was convened which heard the After grievance. hearing, decision: following committee rendered information, and “Held: It seem additional would policies not have on this were matter regulations significant bearing made to the committee. available fact, not, or is
“Held: It be determined whether there is in cannot document; i.e., job contractual as a result said relationship announcement, 6a, (see 6c). exhibit 6b and future, vacancy In the non-union job
“Recommendation: indicates that clearly announcements should contain a statement which the terms conditions of hiring employment governed III Montana Manual.” volume of the Operations Thereafter, on director January Department decision, in Institutions entered a written part: “It is decision the Director holdings accept committee which indicated that the failed to sustain grievants position. burden affirms proof essentially management’s committee, made is well the recommendation it “Considering taken, but must be taken under advisement. To require stipulation non-union this nature would higher degree put responsibility is Center then at the Montana job positions presently to other in state government relative required job agencies posting and the Institutions. the decision
“CONCLUSION: Director accepts upholds the committee which essentially supports management’s position this grievance.”
Thereafter, review in District filed Roeber his petition Roeber, his through Court. While the matter was there pending, *7 counsel, District from the declaratory filed a motion a had an the express Court that non-union determining employees the action of State, by the contract with was impaired implied counsel, Court, all called to by the The District letter Department. a to motion of counsel whether attention the and requested could a declaratory judgment be converted into proceedings done, this should be action. The met and that 'orally stipulated parties was written above set forth executed eventually stipulation and the counsel Roeber State. law, the Court of fact and conclusions of
In its findings at the grievance procedure frustration about expressed level. The court stated: administrative finds, a was, the local level as Court “The at grievance hearing ’ had that it insufficient The committee concluded ‘nondecision. of an evidence to make an informed decision. It it on passed by way administrative to the Director of the Institutions. Department appeal 26, 1988, of the matter aby “On January disposed Director, the ‘nondecision’ character Director’s decision. The despite actions, one, treated it as that the holding of the local committee’s failed to sustain their ‘burden of and that had plaintiff proof had the make the By to management right change. upholding ‘decision’ there was thus created two different management’s as far as the one-half hour lunch was concerned categories paid period — — one for union a different one for non-union.” The District Court went on to determine that it had jurisdiction determine the under the broad legal rights parties provisions Act, the Uniform because counsel Declaratory Judgments particularly for both had that review of the administrative agreed Moreover, decision was now moot. the District Court found as a fact that there existed an contract between management implied one-half-hour lunch as one of conditions plaintiffs establishing paid of their It found a breach employment. by management implied contract of so the court held in favor of the employment, employees. decides the case as Roeber and his majority opinion though associates had elected a form of and could apply none other. This flies in the face of which provides that a be rendered “whether or not the declaratory judgment may has plaintiff requested agency” pass upon applicability the rule in This Court should be to be unwilling question. especially used as a where the in this case writing pawn, appellant stipulated Court, the District and then on procedure adopted case, seeks to evade the results of its In this stipulation. had lunch administration same impose non-paid attempted the union as the non-union period upon employees. employees upon However, the collective filed by bargaining agreement union back reinstate for the made the administration up union The District Court found that period. in his memorandum: factor The district noted Judge important. was, course, contract, that made “There no written except with the collective unit. It seems to the Court department bargaining 1, 1987, with the union as it did on July by agreeing went a toward way acknowledging long-standing agreement long that this with all of its The evidence employees. persuasive to the have been contrary eight existed. agreement agreement 39-4-107, MCA); but even that statute has (§ escape hour statute day *8 form of for collective agreements clauses in the provisions bargaining mutual between as well as the agreement not covered union contract. ‘‘The court with that the time conduct created an agrees long plaintiff contract which could not be itas was ...” implied unilaterally changed The truth is the means for redress for the non-union only this case is means declaratory judgment. to handle such law is not fitted as the procedure questions and the existence of of contracts contracts. These impairment implied more in the action. The legal questions properly sphere considered a double legislature possibilities remedy provided if cases such as this: one would procedure situation, other, whether or not the grievance procedure sufficed, for a relief. judicial remedy by declaratory wonders,
One now that ordered a further judicial has majority review, It will not be what the will find to review. District Court the “nondecision.” helped by
I of the District Court. dissent and would affirm judgment HUNT, concurs with the dissent of JUSTICE foregoing JUSTICE SHEEHY.