Summary
In McAninch v. Crumbley, 65 Ohio St.2d 31, 34, 417 N.E.2d 1252 (1981), the Supreme Court invalidated Ohio Adm.Code 123:1-5-03 to the extent that it altered the statutory definition of an unclassified employee under R.C. 124.11(A)(9).
Summary of this case from Ohio Veterans Home v. TaylorOpinion
No. 80-963
Decided March 18, 1981.
Civil service — Deputy sheriffs — Notice of exemption — Failure to file — Effect on unclassified status — Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03, construed.
An appointing authority who fails to comply with Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03 is not precluded from asserting an employee's unclassified status pursuant to R.C. 124.11 (A)(9).
CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Belmont County.
George B. McAninch, appellant, was employed as chief deputy to Sheriff Katherine Crumbley, appellee herein. The sheriff relieved McAninch of his duties as chief deputy on October 7, 1978, by filing an order of removal with the State Personnel Board of Review (board) and the Department of Administrative Services and serving that removal order upon appellant.
McAninch appealed that order to the board, which conducted a hearing on December 6, 1978, on its jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Under R.C. 124.03(A), the board has the authority to hear appeals of employees "in the classified" service from final decisions of appointing authorities discharging those employees. Sheriff Crumbley testified at the hearing to the effect that appellant held a fiduciary and administrative position in the sheriff's department, thus making him part of the unclassified civil service, as provided in R.C. 124.11(A)(9), and not entitled to have his order of dismissal reviewed by the board. McAninch offered testimony to the effect that his was merely a ministerial post, not properly considered fiduciary or administrative, and therefore not within the unclassified service as claimed by the sheriff. In addition, McAninch argued that, in any event, Sheriff Crumbley was precluded from asserting appellant's unclassified status because the sheriff failed to file a notice of exemption with the Department of Administrative Services listing McAninch as an unclassified employee. Such notice is required by Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03. the hearing examiner concluded that despite undisputed noncompliance with the rule, appellant was an unclassified civil servant not entitled to review before the board, and recommended the appeal be dismissed. The hearing examiner's report and recommendation was subsequently adopted by the board. Upon further appeal, both the Court of Common Pleas and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court of Appeals finding its judgment to be in conflict with the judgment of the Court of Appeals for Union County in In re Dismissal of Mitchell (December 22, 1978), No. 14-78-12, unreported, affirmed, 60 Ohio St.2d 85 (1979), certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination.
Messrs. Thornburg Bean and Mr. Charles H. Bean, for appellant.
Mr. Edward G. Sustersic, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. James L. Nichelson, for appellee.
Whether a deputy sheriff holds a fiduciary or administrative relationship to the sheriff is a question of fact dependent on the actual duties assigned to and performed by the deputy sheriff. In re Termination of Employment (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 107; State, ex rel. Emmons, v. Lutz (1936), 131 Ohio St. 466. In this case, the hearing examiner determined as fact that McAninch held a fiduciary and administrative post, based on testimony adduced at the hearing and such exhibits as a printed job description and official correspondence to which McAninch's name was attached. The hearing officer acted properly when he examined the duties assigned to and performed by the chief deputy, and correctly concluded that appellant fit within the definition of unclassified employee found in R.C. 124.11(A)(9).
R.C. 124.11 provides in pertinent part:
"The civil service of the state and the several counties, * * * shall be divided into the unclassified service and the classified service.
"(A) The unclassified service shall comprise the following positions, which shall not be included in the classified service, and which shall be exempt from all examinations required by this chapter:
"* * *
"(9) The deputies and assistants of elective or principal executive officers authorized to act for and in the place of their principals, or holding a fiduciary relation to such principals and those persons employed by and directly responsible to elected county officials and holding a fiduciary or administrative relationship to such elected county officials * * *."
Although, as a matter of fact, appellant fit within the relevant definition of an unclassified civil service employee, appellee failed to comply with Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03. This rule, implementing the authority given the Director of Administrative Services under R.C. 124.09(C) to keep a list of all classified employees, and under R.C. 124.20(A) to put into effect rules for the classification of employments in the civil service, requires an appointing authority to designate in writing and file with the Department of Administrative Services an exemption for those positions in his department which are administrative or fiduciary. Thus, the rule works to provide a list of unclassified employees to the board. In addition, the rule has the salutary effect of easing "the anxiety of public employees whose jobs are in the gray area between classified and unclassified service." In re Termination of Employment, supra, at page 116 (William B. Brown, J., concurring opinion).
Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03 provides:
"Deputies and Assistants. Notices from appointing authorities of the appointment of deputies and assistants exempt from the classified services under the provisions of paragraph (A)(9) of Section 124.11, Ohio Revised Code, shall be accompanied by a statement of the provisions of the law under which such deputies and assistants are appointed and a statement of the duties to be assigned to such appointees showing that they are performing duties of a confidential and fiduciary character involving the responsibilities of their principals."
Appellant argues that the effect of noncompliance with this rule is to preclude the appointing official from asserting that appellant has the status of an unclassified employee. As authority for this proposition, appellant cites In re Dismissal of Mitchell, supra ( 60 Ohio St.2d 85), in which this court affirmed a decision of the Court of Appeals for Union County which held that failure to comply with Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03 did preclude the Union County sheriff from asserting that his chief deputy was in the unclassified civil service. However, there, on appeal to this court, the issue presented concerned only whether the jourt of Appeals had the authority to review the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas. In re Dismissal of Mitchell, supra, at page 87. This court for the first time in the case sub judice reaches the issue of the efficacy of this administrative rule to preclude the appointing authority from claiming unclassified status for the employee.
An administrative rule is not inconsistent with a statute unless the rule contravenes or is in derogation of some express provision of the statute. State, ex rel. Curtis, v. DeCorps (1938), 134 Ohio St. 295; 2 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d 238, Administrative Law, Section 72. Here, appellant was found as a matter of fact to fit within the definition of unclassified employee contained in R.C. 124.11(A)(9). Given the applicability of this legislative provision, an administrative rule which would preclude its use must yield. In the instant case, to the extent Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03 acts to modify the meaning of R.C. 124.11(A)(9), it impermissibly changes a legislative entitlement and is invalid.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
RUTHERFORD, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., concurs in the judgment only.
W. BROWN, J., dissents.
RUTHERFORD, J., of the Fifth Appellate District, sitting for P. BROWN, J.
I would require appointing authorities to utilize the procedure delineated in Ohio Adm. Code 123:1-5-03. See my concurring opinion to In re Termination of Employment (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 107, 116. Compliance fith this procedure requires only a minimal effort, yet clearly facilitates the division of employees into the unclassified and classified civil service, as required by R.C. 124.11.
A policy underlying the classification of civil service employees is the protection of classified employees from arbitrary and unjust removal. State, ex rel. Buckman, v. Munson (1943), 141 Ohio St. 319. Unclassified employees are not granted such protection. 15 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d, Civil Servants and Other Public Officers and Employees, Section 125. Given the consequences of civil service classification, exemption from the classified service should be determined at the onset of employment. An early mandatory determination of classification would promote the policy of the civil service laws by removing uncertainty of status and reducing the potential for arbitrary and unjust removal of protected employees.