Cite as Sigrah v. Kosrae,13 FSM Intrm. 315 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005)

[13 FSM Intrm. 315]

CIVIL ACTION NO. 141-04

Hearing: June 30, 2005
Decided: July 4, 2005

APPEARANCES:

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment

The standard for granting summary judgment is that the judgment sought must be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with

[13 FSM Intrm. 316]

the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Sigrah v. Kosrae, 13 FSM Intrm. 315, 317 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment

Summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, discovery responses under oath, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In considering a summary judgment motion, the court must view the facts and inferences in a light that is most favorable to the party opposing the motion. The burden of showing a lack of triable issues of fact belongs to the moving party. Sigrah v. Kosrae, 13 FSM Intrm. 315, 317 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Public Officers and Employees – Kosrae

For the period of 1993-97, the law and regulations for the Executive Service System are applicable. For the period of 1997 to 2002, the law and regulations for the Kosrae State Public Service System are applicable. Former Kosrae State Code, Title 5, Chapter 4 (repealed) governed the Executive Service System during a portion of the relevant period, from 1993 to 1997. Sigrah v. Kosrae, 13 FSM Intrm. 315, 319 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Public Officers and Employees – Kosrae

Since the then applicable law limited compensation for additional duties only when the additional duties performed were duties for a position with a greater salary and the plaintiff's tasks were duties of another classified position that, in the position classification plan, was compensated at the same as his, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation for the additional tasks that he performed from 1993 to 1998. Sigrah v. Kosrae, 13 FSM Intrm. 315, 319 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Public Officers and Employees – Kosrae

For additional compensation, the "additional duties" performed by the public employee must be the duties of a position that has a greater salary than the employee's regular salary. When the journeyman tradesman (refrigeration mechanic) plaintiff's "additional duties" are the duties of another journeyman tradesman position (i.e. electrician or plumber) which has the same salary as the plaintiff's regular salary, the plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation for the additional duties since all journeyman tradesman positions, regardless of specialization, are classified at pay level 7. Sigrah v. Kosrae, 13 FSM Intrm. 315, 319 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

Civil Procedure – Summary Judgment

When viewing the facts and inferences in the best light to the plaintiff, and accepting his argument that the additional tasks he performed were duties of another classified position of tradesman, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for performing those additional duties must be rejected since the defendant, as the moving party, has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the salary of the journeyman tradesman position which normally includes the additional duties is not greater than the plaintiff's regular salary, which it must be for extra compensation. Sigrah v. Kosrae, 13 FSM Intrm. 315, 320 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2005).

COURT'S OPINION

ALIKSA B. ALIKSA, Associate Justice:

Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on May 13, 2005. Plaintiff filed a

[13 FSM Intrm. 317]

Memorandum in Opposition on June 1, 2005. Defendant filed a Reply Brief on June 20, 2005. The Defendant's Motion was set for hearing on June 28, 2005. Lyndon L. Cornelius, MLSC, appeared for the Plaintiff. Defendant was represented by J.D. Lee, Acting Attorney General.

The Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment seeks judgment on the second cause of action stated in the Complaint: regulatory violation of Kosrae State Regulation 48-98, Section 6.4, on the claim for additional duties. After hearing from the parties, I took the Motion under advisement. Based upon consideration of the submissions and arguments of the parties, and competent evidence submitted by the parties, I find that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the Defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the second cause of action, regulatory violation of Kosrae State Regulation 48-98, Section 6.4, and the claim for additional duties. Therefore, I grant the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. This Order sets forth my findings and reasoning.

I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The standard for the granting of summary judgment is established by the KRCP, Rule 56(c) as follows:

Rule 56(c) SUMMARY JUDGMENT

(c) Motion and Proceedings Thereon

. . . The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. . . .

Summary judgment must be granted if the pleadings, discovery responses under oath, and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. In considering a summary judgment motion, this Court must view the facts and inferences in a light that is most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Sigrah v. Kosrae State Land Comm'n, 11 FSM Intrm. 169 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2002).

II. FACTS.

The burden of showing a lack of triable issues of fact belongs to the moving party. Kihara Real Estate, Inc. v. Estate of Nanpei (I), 6 FSM Intrm. 48 (Pon. 1993). Based upon the submissions of the parties and the competent evidence present in the record of this matter, I find the following undisputed facts.

Plaintiff was a permanent employee of Kosrae State Government, Department of Public Works from 1987 until July 2002, when he resigned to work for the Kosrae Utilities Authority ("KUA"). Plaintiff was hired and classified as a "tradesman – refrigeration mechanic," at pay level 7, into the Executive Service System. Plaintiff remained at pay level 7 throughout his employment with Kosrae State Government, until his resignation in 2002. In approximately 1998, Plaintiff was automatically transferred, along with all Executive Service Employees, into the Kosrae State Public Service System. No changes were made in Plaintiff's pay level or position description.

In 1993, the Kosrae State Government electrician tradesman employees transferred to the newly created KUA. After the transfer of the electricians to KUA, Plaintiff performed tasks that were not specifically listed in the description of duties and responsibilities of a refrigeration mechanic. Plaintiff performed the following tasks which were not specifically listed in the description of duties and

[13 FSM Intrm. 318]

responsibilities of a refrigeration mechanic: changing light bulbs at Okat airport, changing lights at the Gymnasium in Tofol, maintenance work on the marine markers at Lelu and Okat harbors, maintenance work at the Lelu sewage dump wet well, non-refrigeration work at the tennis courts, stevedoring facility at Okat harbor, and Department of Education facilities ("tasks"). These tasks were not assigned to Plaintiff in writing, but were made verbally by his supervisor, Rollence Weilbacher. It is the performance of these tasks for which Plaintiff seeks additional compensation as "additional duties." Plaintiff was never assigned to a detail position, acting position, temporary promotion or temporary assignment for these tasks now claimed as additional duties.

All journeyman tradesman are classified in Public Service System at pay level 7. The Class Specification for Journeyman Tradesman provides that individual positions are titled in accordance with trade specialization. Plaintiff's trade specialization was titled as "refrigeration mechanic." The description of Plaintiff's duties and responsibilities, as a refrigeration mechanic, included two listed duties that were not specific to refrigeration: 1. repair of other kinds of equipment when not working on refrigeration or air conditioning equipment, and 2. performs other related duties as assigned.

Based upon the submissions of the parties, these tasks claimed by Plaintiff as additional duties could have been performed as "related duties" of a refrigeration mechanic, or as duties of a PSS classified position of laborer at pay level 2, or as duties of a PSS classified position of maintenance man at pay level 7, or as duties of another PSS classified journeyman tradesman also at pay level 7. Viewing the facts in the best light to the Plaintiff, in consideration of Defendant's Motion, I find that the tasks performed by the Plaintiff and claimed as additional duties were the duties of another PSS classified journeyman tradesman, such as electrician or plumber. Therefore, the tasks performed by the Plaintiff were duties of another specialized tradesman, also classified at the same pay level as Plaintiff, pay level 7.

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS.

Plaintiff claims that he is entitled to a two step increase in compensation for the relevant time period for performance of the additional duties. Plaintiff claims that the tasks he performed were within the set of duties assigned to another classified position: electrician or another specific tradesman. Defendant argues that Plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation for "additional duties" because he was not the subject of a "detail," "acting," or "temporary promotion or assignment." Defendant further argues that the "additional duties" claimed by the Plaintiff would normally be done by another tradesman – at the same compensation level as Plaintiff. Therefore Plaintiff is not entitled to any additional compensation for the performance of "additional duties." Defendants move for partial summary judgment on second cause of action stated in the Complaint: Kosrae State Reg.ulation, 48-98, Section 6.4, on the claim for additional duties.

The materials facts are undisputed as set forth above. In considering the Defendant's Motion and the arguments of the parties, I have considered the facts and arguments in the best light to the Plaintiff: that Plaintiff performed tasks outside of those duties specifically listed for his position of Refrigeration Mechanic Tradesman, and that the Plaintiff performed the tasks that would have been assigned to another specialized tradesman, such as an Electrician or Plumber Tradesman.

Plaintiff argues that the "related duties" of a specific tradesman, such as "refrigeration mechanic" may not include duties of another classified position. Plaintiff argues that, as a refrigeration mechanic, his performance of duties of another classified position, such as an electrician or plumber tradesman, must constitute additional duties for which Plaintiff is entitled to additional compensation, a two-step increase.

[13 FSM Intrm. 319]

A review of applicable law and rules are instructive. For the period of 1993-1997, the law and regulations for the Executive Service System are applicable. For the period of 1997 to 2002, the law and regulations for the Kosrae State Public Service System are applicable.

Former Kosrae State Code, Title 5, Chapter 4 (repealed) governed the Executive Service System during a portion of the relevant period, from 1993 to 1997.

Former Section 5.427 governed compensation for "additional duties" as follows:

If an employee performs duties in addition to those stated in the classification plan for his regular position and the compensation for the position which normally includes the additional duties is greater than his regular salary, he receives the greater salary during the period of performance.

Former Section 5.427 limits compensation for additional duties only when the additional duties performed are duties for a position with a greater salary. Viewing Plaintiff's facts and argument in the best light, that tasks he performed were duties of another classified position, these were duties assigned to another specialized Journeyman Tradesman, such as electrician or plumber. If an employee performs duties in addition to those stated for his regular position in the position classification plan, and the compensation for the position which normally includes the additional duties is greater than his regular salary, then he is entitled to the higher salary during the period of performance. Jackson v. Kosrae, 11 FSM Intrm. 197 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2002). All Journeyman Tradesman positions were classified at pay level 7. Therefore, the statutory basis under Kosrae State Code, Section 5.427 for receiving compensation for the performance of additional duties is not satisfied. Under the Executive Service System statutory provisions, Plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation, for the additional tasks that he performed from 1993 to 1998.

The Kosrae State Public Service System Act at Kosrae State Code, Title 18, and its implementing regulations, superseded the Executive Service System in 1998. Compensation for additional duties, under Kosrae State Code, Title 18, is not addressed by statute, but is governed by regulation. Regulation 48-98, applicable to Plaintiff's claims from 1998 through 2002, governs compensation for additional duties in Section 6.4 as follows:

6.4 Compensation for Detail, Acting and Temporary Promotions or Assignments. If an employee regularly performs duties in addition to those stated in the classification plan for his regular position and the compensation for the position which normally includes the additional duties is greater than his regular salary, the employee gets paid for such duties as set forth herein. . . .

Regulation 48-98, Section 6.4 requires that for additional compensation, the "additional duties" performed by the employee must be the duties of a position that has a greater salary than the employee's regular salary. See Jackson v. Kosrae, 11 FSM Intrm. 197 (Kos. S. Ct. Tr. 2002). In viewing the facts and inferences in a light that is most favorable to the Plaintiff, that the claimed "additional duties" performed by the Plaintiff are the duties of another journeyman tradesman position, this Court must conclude that the position which normally includes the additional duties – journeyman tradesman (i.e. electrician or plumber) – has the same salary as the Plaintiff's regular salary, also as a journeyman tradesman (refrigeration mechanic). Therefore, under Regulation 48-98, Section 6.4, Plaintiff is not entitled to additional compensation for the additional duties because the position which normally includes the additional duties (journeyman tradesman) is not greater than the Plaintiff's regular salary also as a journeyman tradesman. All journeyman tradesman positions, regardless of specialization, are classified at pay level 7.

[13 FSM Intrm. 320]

IV. ORDER GRANTING PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT.

The standard for granting summary judgment provides that there be "no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." There are no genuine issues as to any material facts. I have considered the facts and arguments in the best light available to the Plaintiff. Based upon the submissions of the parties and the competent evidence in the record of this matter, I conclude that the Plaintiff has failed to produce any competent evidence of any genuine issues of material fact. The Defendants have met their burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material facts remaining for trial.

Viewing the facts and inferences in the best light to the Plaintiff, and accepting Plaintiff's argument that the additional tasks he performed were duties of another classified position of tradesman, the Plaintiff's claim for compensation for performing those additional duties must be rejected. Based upon the above analysis, for the time period of 1993 to 1998, pursuant to Kosrae State Code, Section 5.427, Plaintiff is not entitled to compensation for the additional duties he performed, because the salary of the journeyman tradesman position which normally includes the additional duties is not greater than the Plaintiff's regular salary. For the time period of 1998 to 2002, pursuant to Regulation 48-98, Plaintiff is likewise not entitled to compensation for the additional duties he performed, because the salary of the journeyman tradesman position which normally includes the additional duties is not greater than the Plaintiff's regular salary.

The Defendant, as the moving party, has shown that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, on the second cause of action listed in the Complaint, on the issue of additional duties is granted. Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action is hereby dismissed with prejudice.

V. ORDER TO SET TRIAL.

Trial on the remaining cause of action, the First Cause of Action stated in the Complaint, Statutory Violation of Kosrae State Code, Section 18.604(2), shall be set for trial by the Clerk, during the week of August 22, 2005. Pre-trial briefs shall be filed no later than August 17, 2005.