*1 NEUJAHR, Relator, CIVIL COUNTY SERVICE RAMSEY

COMMISSION, Respondent. of Minnesota.

Court Larkin, Oates, Hoffman, M.

Kathleen Daly Ltd., Minneapolis, Lindgren, & relator. Ramsey Ashbaugh, Atty’s

Elaine Co. Of- fice, respondent. Heard, by and decided considered POPO- VICH, C.J., and PARKER and JJ.

OPINION POPOVICH, Judge. Chief by Ramsey County Civil Service Commission which re- to reclassify fused á remedy. Relator claims the pay policy prohibit payment of retroactive Relator also matter. acted ciously. reverse and remand. FACTS as a Financial was hired Worker by County Human Ramsey III Services Agency as an in 1974. She worked processor until she was transferred to an- 1984. The December held as tions she and a co-worker processors have been abolished. being handled individual duties are now supervisors. case and their workers Service Com- procedure extensive for em- mission has an of an exist- ployees seek reclassification *2 of a ing position position. or creation new pay Retroactive shall commence 90 purpose system of this reclassification days The after the time reclassification provide equitable pay request scales for Ram- is received the Civil Service sey County employees. system Department. is also designed equal pay to ensure equal for 2. Application policy of this shall be work. limited to individuals who are em- ployed by county at the time the early 1983, In plan developed a was decision is made. Community restructure the Services De- partment. plan This a result of was com- April On the Civil Service De- plaints received State from the of Min- partment denied relator’s reclassification Ramsey County’s appeals nesota about pro- request because she been had transferred cessing process. study A determined that prior position and her abolished. On the single appeals presenter greater a with res- day, same Department Civil Service ponsibilities appeals would enhance the “Appeals Representative” recommended an handling process. was a member classification for work. As noted the task prepared study. force which above, position never budget- has ed filled.

In October relator peals they workers were informed would August On requested relator a reassigned within division. On Octo- hearing concerning the Civil Service De- 13, 1983, ber relator submitted reclassifi- partment’s refusal to consider her reclassi- request Ramsey County cation Civil At the October Service Commission. Relator claimed her hearing Commission, relator position was undercompensated and war- presented testimony uncontradicted that higher ranted classification than a Finan- who Worker III. cial request submitted a reclassification in 1983 received retroactive after March day, On the same the director 26, 1984. requested the Commis- Ramsey County Community Human Servic- sion to render relator’s Department request es submitted for the request retro- processor of a posi- creation new pay. require tion. The four would years college years 9, 1984, and two of related On October the Commission is- experience. would receive a request a decision denying sued relator’s higher relator’s, than but the relator reclassification. Since was budgeted never been or filled. transferred of her reclassifi- request, cation the Commission determined While the relator’s decision on reclassifi- relator’s moot was because the pending, reassigned cation relator preclude relator would Appeals from the to the Adult Unit Case receiving pay. Appellant Management During peri- Unit. the same petition filed a for writ certiorari with od, supervisors in relator’s this court and a for review in the prepared reports indicating Unit relator Ramsey County District Court on Novem- was not entitled to 7, 1984. ber position. former Ramsey County On March ISSUES passed Board Commissioners the follow- juris- Does the court of ing resolution: appeals from decisions of diction to hear RESOLVED, That the board of Ram- Ramsey County Service Commis- sey County hereby Commissioners sion? following pertaining lishes the county employees Is a denying positions employment whose are reclassified: reviewable? The Commission has not overcome Civil Service Did the

'3. judicial in favor of capriciously act of administrative actions. Commis reclassifi- by denying relator’s refusing relator’s reclassifica sion’s order cation? tion is review. *3 3. Relator claims the Commission ANALYSIS arbitrary capricious it and ruled jurisdic- on appeal 1. Relator bases applies retroac the Administra- provided by the Minnesota tion tively to relator’s October 1983 reclassifica 14.- Act. tive Procedure See §§ prohib The March resolution (1984). The Commission claims this 63-69 salary its first 90 retroactive the jurisdiction to not is made. If after a (1) or- its appeal. It claims applies, prohibits March resolution it pursuant are district court ders matter because 15 and Minn.Stat. § relator was transferred agen- is a statewide the Commission not period expired. 90-day 14. falling purview chapter of cy believe the Commission used ret We argued fully and be- Having briefed making a roactive to avoid rea this matter fore this we consider decision on relator’s reclassification soned the merits.1 request. See Amsterdam-Manhattan As an de- order 941, Joy, v. 42 N.Y.2d 397 N.Y. sociates employment is not nying of 1000, Thus, 1354 S.2d 366 N.E.2d in It claims that judicial review. represents its the Commission’s specific civil statute or the absence of judgment.” Beaty “will not its Min appeal, authorizing an no service rule Teaching, Board 354 N.W.2d nesota its No peal may taken from actions. Moreover, (Minn.Ct.App.1984). 471 specifically au- service rule statute civil similarly situ the record indicates another from a reclassification appeal thorizes an granted reclassification ated decision. after March 1984. danger [Wjhere is a combination of there proper review is contends signals suggest agency which do applicable rules statute because taken a “hard look” at the salient not appeal of a reclassifi expressly not address problems genuinely and “has not en- agree. cation decision. decision-making” it gaged in reasoned in There is a favor duty of the court to intervene. agency decisions judicial review Herbst, Company 256 Mining Reserve statutory language to con- absence of (Minn.1977). Relator is N.W.2d 825 trary. to full consideration of her reclassi- entitled Interest Research Minnesota Public backpay if and retroactive Group Environmental v. Minnesota entitled to reclassification. she was Council, Quality DECISION judi- Preclusion of arbitrary and The Commission was actions is cial review of administrative applied it the March 1984 retro- cious when lightly The fact that statute inferred. pay policy to relator’s October is not provides of some acts suffi- review request. We remand to the acts are not re- cient to infer that other for a reasoned determination n. Commission n. 237 N.W.2d at 379 viewable. Id. at been reclas- relator should have whether (Minn.Ct.App.1985); prior trict No. 365 N.W.2d approach with our 1. This is consistent legislative enactments. with recent decisions and Special g., School Dis E. Brandhorst v. so, If sified. she is entitled to retroactive after legislation). the effective date backpay. Neujahr Because filed her in No- vember chapter granted before

Reversed and remanded. case, over the properly should have been Judge before the dis- (dissenting). trict court. I respectfully dissent on the issue of review to which Neujahr is entitled is before

district court under Minn.Stat. 484.01

(1984), not Appeals. before the Court of

See, e.g., City Winger, (decision (Minn.Ct.App.1985) N.W.2d 779 *4 Paul St. Civil Service Commission was

appealed District (1984));

Court under Minn.Stat. Mil NORTHWOODS ENVIRONMENTAL § INSTITUTE, al., Petitioners, ler City 363 N.W.2d 806 et denied, (Minn.Ct.App.1985), pet. rev. (Minn. 26, 1985) Apr. (decision of the St. MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL City appealed Council was to the Ram AGENCY, Respondent. Court). sey County District jurisdiction “ap This court’s limited to

pellate courts, jurisdiction except over all Court of Appeals of Minnesota. the supreme appellate jur and other prescribed by as isdiction law.” Minn. Const, VI, “By art. law” § en legislative

state’s constitution means Compensa

actment. See Clerk Court’s Lyon Lyon County Commissioners, At the time Neu-

jahr filed for a writ of certiora- jurisdiction jurisdic

ri our statute confered

tion to de review administrative rules and appealed agencies having

cisions from

state-wide See Minn.Stat. 480A.06, 4; 14.02, subd. subd.

§ § jurisdiction ap

It did not confer county-wide agencies.

peals from May

Effective the Minnesota

Legislature enacted 1985 Minn.Laws ch. (amending (1984)), giving jurisdiction agencies.”

issue writs certiorari “all provision appears grant jurisdiction county-wide agencies

to hear May' the writ was filed or after sec. Cf.

(transition provision legislation

lishing Appeals granted the Court of over cases in which

notice, petition, or writ was filed bn or