Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-s-0687 Civil IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD F. WAGNER, Treasurer : NO. 94-S-687 of AdaI~s County, Pennsylvania, : Plaintiff : : V. : : THOMAS WEAVER, RICHARD WAYBRIGHT : and HARRY STOKES, Commissioners : of Adams County, Pennsylvania : : and : : THE ADAMS COUNTY SALARY BOARD, : Defendants : IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J.* ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this {~ day of April, 1995, after careful consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Related Relief, following a nonjury trial and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, the Court finds IN FAVOR of Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.~ BY THE COURT, JU~e-sley 61~r~., J. - *Specially presiding. See Order of Court, August 10, 1994 (Spicer, P.J.). ~ See Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1 for procedures relating to post-trial relief. Barbara Jo Entwistle, Esq. 33 West Middle Street Gettysburg, PA 17325 Attorney for Plaintiff John R. White, Esq. 122 Baltimore Street Gettysburg, PA 17325 Attorney for Defendants : rc IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ADAMS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA CIVIL ACTION - LAW RICHARD F. WAGNER, Treasurer : NO. 94-S-687 of Adams County, Pennsylvania, : Plaintiff : : v. : : THOMAS WEAVER, RICHARD WAYBRIGHT : and HARRY STOKES, Commissioners : of Adams County, Pennsylvania : : and : : THE ADAMS COUNTY SALARY BOARD, : Defendants : IN RE: ADJUDICATION BEFORE OLER, J.* OPINION and ORDER OF COURT Oler, J. This case presents the issue of whether a certain paid-time- off policy adopted by the Adams County Commissioners for county employees constituted "compensation" within the meaning of Sections 1620 et seq. of the County Code, so as to require action by the Adams County Salary Board, and, if so, whether the adoption of the policy effected a material change in such "compensation." For the reasons stated in this Opinion, both questions will be answered in the negative. * Specially presiding. See Order of Court, August 10, 1994 (Spicer, P.J.). Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 STATEMENT OF FACTS Plaintiff is Richard F. Wagner, Treasurer of Adams County. Defendants are the Commissioners of Adams County -- Thomas Weaver, Chairman, Richard Waybright and Harry Stokes - and the Adams County Salary Board.~ Adams County is a Pennsylvania county of the sixth class. On Wednesday, July 20, 1994, the Commissioners adopted by motion at a public meeting a certain paid-time-off policy (PTO policy) for county employees.2 The policy replaced a previous benefits program respecting vacation and sick leave.3 Traditionally, the Salary Board has not been the entity which promulgated employee benefits programs in Adams County. On Monday, August 1, 1994, Plaintiff, in his capacity as county treasurer, filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Related Relief against Defendants, seeking injunctive and other relief on the ground that the PTO policy had not been properly adopted. The premise underlying this contention was that the PTO ~ Defendant Weaver is also chairman of the Salary Board. 2 Plaintiff's Exhibit 6 (Minutes of Commissioners' meeting, July 20, 1994). The motion passed by a vote of two-to-one, with Commissioner Waybright voting in the negative. 3 The previous program was contained in a 1993 Personnel Policies and Benefits booklet. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. 2 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 policy effected compensation for county employees, and was thus within the province of the Salary Board as opposed to the Commissioners under the County Code.4 A nonjury trial in the matter was held on February 27, 1995, and April 7, 1995. At the trial, testimony was received from Plaintiff Wagner in his case-in-chief, and from Adams County Clerk of Courts Peggy Breighner in Plaintiff's rebuttal. Testimony was received from Defendant Weaver, former Adams County Commissioner Robert W. Klunk,s Adams County nursing home administrator Patricia T. Konhaus, and former chief financial officer, now president and chief executive officer, of Gettysburg Hospital, Steve Renner, in Defendant's case-in-chief. No surrebuttal was presented by Defendants. Eleven exhibits were also admitted. The purpose of the Commissioners in adopting the PTO policy was (a) to decrease the absenteeism fostered by a use-it-or-lose it sick-leave program, (b) to reduce the overtime charges to the county incident to such absenteeism, (c) to invest employees with personal control over their utilization of vacation and sick time while encouraging conservatism in such use by monetary incentives, (d) to enable employees to accumulate reserves in the event of 4 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Related Relief, paragraphs 8-11. s Mr. Klunk was at times also a former chairman or vice- chairman of the Adams County Salary Board. 3 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 lone-term disability, and (e) to thereby reduce the impetus for county implementation and financing of a long-term disability program.6 At the same time, the policy was intended to have no effect upon the county budget -- i.e., to be "budget neutral."7 The Adams County Commissioners' first written personnel policy respecting vacation and sick leave was adopted around 1973 and consisted of a few paragraphs only. By 1993, provisions pertaining to employee time off were contained in a 12-page document detailing personnel policies and benefits. These policies and benefits were applicable to all employees of the following county offices and departments, inter alia: court, district justice, probation, domestic relations, commissioners, recorder of deeds and register of wills, prothonotary, auditor, treasurer, sheriff, coroner, district attorney, clerk of courts, and jury commissioners. The employee benefits conferred included Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Blue Shield Pendental I, Major Medical, prescription drugs, life insurance, increased pay for overtime, paid vacation, paid sick leave, paid jury duty leave, maternity leave, holidays, retirement pension, credit union, tuition/education assistance, FICA contributions, unemployment insurance and workers' 6 Partial Transcript of Proceedings, February 27, 1995, N.T. 7-8. ~ Id. at 6-7. 4 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 compensation.8 Under the benefits program in effect in 1993, the basic policy as to vacations was that an employee accumulated paid vacation time at an increasing rate according to length of service, that the amount of unused vacation time which could be carried over to a succeeding year also increased according to length of service (six days during an employee's second through tenth year, and eight days during succeeding years), and that upon termination or retirement unused vacation time was not lost.9 The basic policy as to sick leave was that an employee accumulated paid sick leave at an increasing rate according to length of service, that unused sick leave could be accumulated indefinitely up to 120 days, and that upon termination or retirement unused sick leave was lost.~° Under the PTO policy, adopted in 1994, the basic policy as to vacations was that an employee accumulated "paid time off" at an increasing rate according to length of service, subject to certain carryover and separation rules. Similarly, the basic policy as to sick leave was that an employee accumulated "paid time off" at an increasing rate according to length of service, subject to certain 8 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1. 9 Id., at 12. To be more precise, unused vacation time for the year of separation and such time carried over from the previous year was not lost. ~o Id., at 9. 5 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 carryover and separation rules. More precisely stated, paid vacation time and paid sick leave were essentially subsumed in a single category of paid leave called "paid time off," accumulated according to length of service at a single rate, and subject to certain carryover and separation rules. Under this policy, an employee's use of "paid time off" was not, in general, regulated as to purpose or cause - for example, was not limited to occasions of illness. A maximum carryover of such unregulated paid time off of 200 hours was permitted from the previous year. An additional carryover, which could accumulate indefinitely, was permitted for any excess paid time off, but was placed in a sick-leave reserve account and limited as to use accordingly. Upon termination or retirement, unused paid time off was not, as a general rule, lost. Unused paid time off in the sick-leave reserve account was, however, forfeited. ~ Under the benefits program in effect in 1993, paid vacation time accumulated at the rate of one-half day per month for the 12 first year of employment, one day per month for each of the next nine years, one-and-a-quarter days per month for each of the next ~ Plaintiff's Exhibit 2. ~2 To be more precise, it accumulated at this rate from the second to the thirteenth month of employment, the first month being considered probationary. 6 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 five years, and one-and-a-half days per month for each year thereafter.~3 Paid sick leave accumulated at the rate of one-half day per month for the first year of employment,TM one day per month for each of the next nine years, and one-and-a-quarter days per month for each year thereafter.~s Under the PTO policy adopted in 1994, paid time off accumulated at the rate of .047 hour for each hour worked for the first year of employment, .093 hour for each hour worked for the next nine years, and .115 hours for each hour worked for the next five years. Thereafter, it accumulated at the rate of .127 hours for each hour worked. The long-term effect upon a given employee of the adoption of the PTO policy is speculative, because it depends upon variables which are not yet known. One does not know, for instance, how many sick days a given employee will actually suffer in future years. Nor was any analysis presented at the hearing in the form of a comparison of benefits based upon prior experience. The evidence at the hearing tended to show, however, that at least as of the time of the hearing the PTO policy had not had an ~3 Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, at 12. ~4 To be more precise, it accumulated at this rate from the second to the thirteenth month of employment, the first month being considered probationary. ~s Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, at 9. 7 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 adverse effect upon the Adams County budget. Furthermore, no evidence was presented suggesting that an adverse effect had been felt by any Adams County employee from the policy.~6 DISCUSSION Statement of law. With respect to statutory construction, several rules are pertinent to the present case. First, "[t]he object of all interpretation and construction of statutes is to ascertain and effectuate the intention of the General Assembly. Every statute [is to be] construed, if possible, to give effect to all its provisions." Act of December 6, 1972, P.L. 1339, ~3, 1 Pa. C.S. ~1921(a) (1994 Supp.). When the words of a statute are not explicit, the intention of the General Assembly may be ascertained by considering, among other things, the occasion and necessity for the statute, the mischief to be remedied, the object to be attained, and the consequences of a particular interpretation. Id., ~1921(c)(1), (c)(3), (c)(4), (0)(6). With respect to litigation based upon the premise that a certain act of public officials is invalid, the general rule is that "the law presumes the validity of actions taken by public officials until the contrary has been shown." Petition to American ~6 A hypothetical example can, of course, be constructed whereby the budget and an employee would be affected. See, e.g., Plaintiff's Exhibit 9. 8 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 Bank, 23 Pa. Commw. 434, 437, 332 A.2d 858, 860 (1975). With respect to provisions of the County Code pertinent to this action, Section 1620 of the Code generally describes the responsibility of a county salary board: The salaries and compensation of all appointed officers and employes who are paid from the county treasury shall be fixed by the salary board created by [the County Code] for such purposes .... Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, §1620, as amended, 16 P.S. S1620 (1994 Supp.). In more detail, the Code provides in Section 1623 as follows: The board, subject to limitations imposed by law, shall fix the compensation of all appointed county officers, and the number and compensation of all deputies, assistants, clerks and other persons whose compensation is paid out of the county treasury (except employes of county offices who are paid by fees and not by salary), and of all court criers, tipstaves and other court employes, and of all officers, clerks, stenographers and employes appointed by the judges of any court and who are paid from the county treasury. Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, S1623, 16 P.S. ~1623. County commissioners, on the other hand, are given broad powers with respect to county fiscal matters: The county commissioners shall be the responsible managers and administrators of the fiscal affairs of their respective counties in accordance with the provisions of [the County Code] and other applicable law. Act of August 9, 1955, P.L. 323, §1701, 16 P.S. §1701. 9 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 For purposes of performing its duties, a salary board such as that of Adams County is composed of the three county commissioners, the county treasurer, and, depending upon the office or agency involved, the head of such office or agency; a fifth member is not included where such office or agency head is among the four basic members. Id., ~§1622, 1625. Decisions of the board are by majority rule. Id., §1625(d). The intent of the legislature in providing for salary boards has recently been reviewed in an opinion by Judge Kelley of the Commonwealth Court: Although the function of the salary board is clearly set out in the Code, the purpose underlying that function is not. This court has stated that the salary board is best conceived as a watchdog agency over the county commissioners, the purpose being to act as a restraining agency so that the commissioners may not have unimpeded and unrestrained power of appointment at any salary they may determine. Cadue v. Moore, Pa. Commw. , , 646 A.2d 683, 685 (1994). Courts have been reluctant to expand the powers of salary boards into areas relating to employee benefits as opposed to salaries. See, e.g., Delvitto v. Shope, 17 Pa. Commw. 436, 333 A.2d 204 (1975) (rejecting argument that salary board was proper entity to determine mandatory retirement age in connection with retirement pension program). Application of law to facts. In the present case, a number of 10 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 factors have led the Court to conclude that the PTO policy adopted by the Adams County Commissioners did not constitute "compensation" within the meaning of Sections 1620 et seq. of the County Code, so as to require action by the Adams County Salary Board, and that, if it did, the adoption did not effect a material change in such compensation. First, the relegation of a decision as to county policy regarding employee benefits such as paid vacation time and sick leave to variously composed salary boards each year would create a risk of nonuniformity within the county and lead to an impractical legislative result. Second, uniform employee benefits in the area of paid vacation and sick leave are not the type of mischief which salary boards were intended to guard against. Third, the broad powers conferred upon the county commissioners over county fiscal affairs seem to the Court more appropriately to cover employee benefits than do the narrow powers conferred upon the salary board. Finally, the effect of the PTO policy sub judice upon the county budget and upon a given county employee is, at best, speculative, and the Court is not in a position to conclude as a fact that a material change in regard to compensation has occurred. For these reasons, and being fully appreciative of Plaintiff's sense of duty as county treasurer in bringing this matter before the Court for a resolution, the Court will enter the following 11 Wagner v. Weaver Adams County No. 94-S-687 Order: ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this ~ day of April, 1995, after careful consideration of Plaintiff's Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Related Relief, following a nonjury trial and for the reasons stated in the accompanying Opinion, the Court finds IN FAVOR of Defendants and AGAINST Plaintiff, and the Complaint is DISMISSED.~ BY THE COURT, s/ J. Wesley Oler, Jr. J. Wesley Oler, Jr., J. Barbara Jo Entwistle, Esq. 33 West Middle Street Gettysburg, PA 17325 Attorney for Plaintiff John R. White, Esq. 122 Baltimore Street Gettysburg, PA 17325 Attorney for Defendants :rc ~ See Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 227.1 for procedures relating to post-trial relief. 12