The Utah Supreme Court has upheld a lower court ruling that county employees are not automatically entitled to merit pay increases, which the court agreed is up to the county commission to decide.
The case dates back to 1988 when six Davis County employees filed suit against the County Commission, which that year did away with the merit increases to balance the county budget.The six said the county had a contract with them for employment and the merit increase was part of that contract and had been in force during their previous year of employment.
By working during 1987 under the assumption that fulfilling their job requirements would earn them the increase, the six maintain the county was obligated to grant the increase.
In 1988, the commissioners revamped the county's merit pay system and in that year alone gave county employees a one-time bonus instead of a merit increase.
The six employees - Brian Weese, Curtis Anderson, Robert Davis, Catherine Lynch, Phyllis Gleave and David Bremer - accepted the bonuses but then sued the commission, saying the county had retroactively altered the terms of employment they had worked under during the previous year.
Second District Judge Rodney S. Page issued a summary judgment in the county's favor on May 30, 1989, and Jack Helgesen, the attorney for the six, appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Page ruled for the county on the basis of a disclaimer in the employee's manual that states that no contract exists between the county and its employees on salary ranges, benefits or other aspects of employment.
"These may change as a result of salary surveys, job analysis or changes in county policies and procedures," the disclaimer states.
The Supreme Court ruled that in addition to the disclaimer in the policy manual, the state Constitution forbids counties from taking on more debt in a fiscal year than their tax revenue can cover.
To accomplish that, commissioners must have the authority to set county expenditures on a year-to-year basis, the court ruled, and contracts guaranteeing annual salary increases would bind future commissions illegally.
The court noted that "setting the salary of public employees is a legislative determination. This includes the power to raise and lower salaries during the continuance of an employee's term or period of employment.
"Appropriations for salaries of public employees fall squarely with the purposes of the constitutional provision."
The ruling also says, "Because the county was constitutionally barred from contracting with the employees for a merit increase in future years, any promise or contract for such an increase is null and void."
Steve Baker, county personnel director, said he's seen a copy of the ruling, which he said appears to be good for the county, but he hasn't reviewed it in detail.