Matthew John Stammeyer Vs. Division Of Narcotics Enforcement Of The Iowa Department Of Public Safety

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 83 / 05-0711
Filed August 18, 2006
MATTHEW JOHN STAMMEYER,
Appellant,
vs.
DIVISION OF NARCOTICS
ENFORCEMENT OF THE IOWA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Appellee.
________________________________________________________________________
On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
Huppert, Judge.
Employee appeals from order dismissing his veterans’ preference
claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DECISION OF COURT OF
APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
John F. Fatino of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for
appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Jeffrey C. Peterzalek,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.
2
STREIT, Justice.
Since the Civil War, Iowa has recognized the enormous
contributions made to our lives by veterans of our armed forces by giving
preference to veterans seeking employment with the state, as well as
employment with the cities, counties, and school corporations within the
state. See generally Kitterman v. Bd. of Supervisors, 137 Iowa 275, 115
N.W. 13 (1908). The plaintiff-appellant, Matthew Stammeyer, appeals
from the district court’s dismissal of his veterans’ preference claim. The
district court dismissed Stammeyer’s claim after it concluded it did not
have jurisdiction over the dispute. Because we conclude the proper
avenue for his complaint was the grievance procedure set forth by the
collective bargaining agreement, we vacate the decision of the court of
appeals and affirm the district court’s order granting the State’s motion
to dismiss.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Stammeyer served with the Iowa Army National Guard from 1981
through 2002 and qualifies as a “veteran” for the purposes of Iowa Code
chapter 35C. See Iowa Code § 35.1(2)(b)(2) (2003). Stammeyer has been
employed by the Iowa Department of Public Safety, Iowa State Patrol
Division, as a trooper since August of 1985. Stammeyer is also a
member of a collective bargaining unit subject to a collective bargaining
agreement between the State Police Officer Council and the Iowa
Department of Public Safety.
In accordance with the provisions of the collective bargaining
agreement, Stammeyer requested a transfer to the Division of Narcotics
Enforcement (hereinafter “DNE”). Stammeyer interviewed for two
positions with DNE but on December 17, 2004, was notified he was not
selected to fill either position.
3
On December 19, 2004, Stammeyer sent a letter to DNE
requesting: (1) the specific reasons he was not selected for either DNE
position; (2) that any such reasons be filed for public review; and (3) that
this information be sent to him within ten days of the successful
applicant’s selection.
DNE did not respond to this request, so Stammeyer filed a petition
in district court appealing DNE’s decision and applying for a writ of
mandamus. See id. § 35C.4 (stating a refusal to allow a veterans’
preference entitles the veteran-applicant to maintain an action of
mandamus to right the wrong). Stammeyer alleged he was entitled to
preference in employment as a veteran and asked the district court to set
aside the appointment and to require DNE to allow him the veterans’
preference. In his application for writ of mandamus, he alleged Iowa
Code chapter 35C imposed a duty on DNE, DNE breached this duty, and
a writ should lie to “right the wrong.”
The State filed a motion to dismiss alleging the district court
lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because the collective
bargaining agreement and chapter 20 of the Iowa Code govern
Stammeyer’s transfer and provide the exclusive grievance procedure for
resolving disputes. It also alleged the veterans’ preference applies only to
“appointment or employment,” not inter-divisional transfers. See id.
§§ 35C.1, .3.
The district court concluded the grievance procedures set forth in
the collective bargaining agreement controlled the dispute and deprived
the court of jurisdiction. See id. § 20.18 (stating public employees shall
follow the grievance procedures provided in a collective bargaining
agreement).
4
Stammeyer appealed this dismissal, claiming he was
improperly denied the opportunity to raise his veterans’ preference claim
in district court. He further contended his veterans’ preference rights
were violated when DNE filled one of the positions with a person who was
not a current state employee. The State Police Officers Council filed an
amicus curiae brief arguing the district court erred in dismissing
Stammeyer’s case because the ruling effectively deprived him of the
veterans’ preference rights conveyed to him by chapter 35C and deprived
him of any meaningful challenge to the actions which disregarded his
veterans’ preference rights.
The court of appeals held chapter 20 of the Iowa Code did not
preclude Stammeyer from availing himself of the specific remedies set
forth in chapter 35C. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s
ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. We granted
further review.
II. Standard of Review
“The [district] court has inherent power to determine whether it
has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the proceedings before it.”
Tigges v. City of Ames, 356 N.W.2d 503, 512 (Iowa 1984). Our scope of
review of rulings on subject matter jurisdiction is for correction of errors
at law. Id.
III. Merits
The question presented in this case is whether a public employee
subject to a collective bargaining agreement can bypass mandatory
grievance procedures and seek relief directly from the district court
under the Iowa Veterans’ Preference Law. The district court answered
this question in the negative, and Stammeyer made two general
arguments on appeal: (1) the grievance procedure set forth in the
5
collective bargaining agreement is not the exclusive remedy for
veterans’ preference claims; (2) because one of the positions was filled by
a person who was not a state employee, he should be treated as a new
applicant and not be bound by the collective bargaining agreement. We
will address each argument in turn.
A. Exclusive Remedy
Chapter 35C provides veterans are entitled “to preference in
appointment and employment over other applicants of no greater
qualifications.” Iowa Code § 35C.1(1). A refusal to allow the preference
entitles the applicant to maintain an action of mandamus to right the
wrong. Id. § 35C.4. If, after receiving evidence, the court finds the
veteran/applicant was qualified to hold the position for which he or she
has applied, the court can direct further action by the appointing body.
Id. § 35C.5.
While chapter 35C does not specifically address employee
transfers, the collective bargaining agreement which governs
Stammeyer’s employment with the Iowa Department of Safety has
explicit provisions that govern the employee transfer process. When
making the decision as to which potential transferee should be hired, the
agreement provides the employer “will take into consideration ability, job
requirements, operational efficiency and seniority.” The employer is not
required to take into consideration the applicant’s status as a veteran.
The agreement also sets forth a specific grievance procedure for
complaints “involving an alleged violation of a specific provision of the
[collective bargaining] Agreement, or the interpretation or application of a
term of this Agreement.” The agreement states the grievance procedure
shall be “exclusive” and “shall replace any other grievance procedure for
adjustment of any disputes arising from the application and
6
interpretation of this Agreement.” See also id. § 20.18 (stating public
employees shall follow the grievance procedures provided in a collective
bargaining agreement).
Stammeyer contends public employees who are subject to
collective bargaining agreements are also allowed to pursue remedies
under chapter 35C because veterans’ preferences are not a mandatory
subject of collective bargaining and chapter 35C overrides any
inconsistent provisions in a collective bargaining agreement. This
argument involves the intersection of two different chapters of the Iowa
Code—veterans’ preference rights under chapter 35C and public
employment relations (collective bargaining) under chapter 20.
Iowa Code chapter 20, the Public Employment Relations Act, is
designed “to promote harmonious and co-operative relationships between
government and its employees by permitting public employees to
organize and bargain collectively.” Id. § 20.1. Section 20.9 provides the
public employer and the employee organization shall meet to negotiate
with respect to
wages, hours, vacations, insurance, holidays, leaves of
absence, shift differentials, overtime compensation,
supplemental pay, seniority, transfer procedures, job
classifications, health and safety matters, evaluation
procedures, procedures for staff reduction, in-service
training and other matters mutually agreed upon.
(Emphasis added.) The product of these negotiations is the collective
bargaining agreement.
Chapter 20 places one important limitation on the scope of
collective bargaining agreements. It ensures that Iowa statutes
supersede terms in a collective bargaining agreement that are
inconsistent with Iowa law. Section 20.28 provides:
7
A provision of the Code which is inconsistent with
any term or condition of a collective bargaining agreement
which is made final under this chapter shall supersede the
term or condition of the collective bargaining agreement unless
otherwise provided by the general assembly.
(Emphasis added.) Stammeyer argues the phrase in section 35C.1 which
states “preference in appointment and employment over other applicants
of no greater qualifications” gives veterans’ preference rights to current
state employees seeking a transfer. He argues the transfer provisions in
the collective bargaining agreement which do not give such a preference
are therefore inconsistent with the Iowa Code. Because of this alleged
inconsistency, Stammeyer contends he is not subject to the mandatory
grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement. In
order for this court to conclude Stammeyer was not subject to the
mandatory grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining
agreement, we must first find there is an inconsistency between the
collective bargaining agreement and section 35C.1.
On its face, section 35C.1 does not expressly indicate veterans
deserve a preference when interviewing for a job transfer. Stammeyer
does not argue that “appointment” means more than an initial hiring
decision. Instead, he argues the legislature intended for the term
“employment” to be interpreted broadly so that it encompasses other
employment decisions made after the initial hire.
We do not interpret this term so broadly. Chapter 35C grants
veterans a preference at the time of the initial hire and, as discussed
below, at the time of removal. There is nothing to suggest veterans are to
be given ongoing preferences during their term of employment.
Beyond the preference in “appointment and employment,” the
legislature granted veterans a preference for veterans facing removal from
8
their employment. This removal statute shines light on the
legislature’s choice of meaning for the word “employment.” Section
35C.6 states:
No person holding a public position by appointment or
employment, and belonging to any of the classes of persons
to whom a preference is herein granted, shall be removed
from such position or employment except for incompetency
or misconduct shown after a hearing, upon due notice, upon
stated charges, and with the right of such employee or
appointee to a review by a writ of certiorari or at such
person’s election, to judicial review in accordance with the
terms of the Iowa administrative procedure Act, chapter 17A,
if that is otherwise applicable to their case.
Use of the phrase “holding a public position by appointment or
employment” implies a narrow interpretation of the term “employment.”
The term “holding” refers to the status of the employee. The phrase “by
appointment or employment” describes how the veteran got the position
to begin with. One can either be appointed to the position, or employed
in the position through the regular hiring process. The confluence of
these terms in the phrase “holding a public position by appointment or
employment” indicates the legislature intended the term “employment” to
be used as an alternative description of how the veteran got the position;
not as a broad term encompassing all employment decisions made after
the initial hire.
The legislative history surrounding section 35C.1 also implies the
term “employment” does not refer to subsequent employment decisions.
Prior to 1985, the veterans’ preference statute expressly stated veterans
were “entitled to preference in appointment, employment, and promotion
over other applicants of no greater qualifications.” See Iowa Code § 70.1
(1985) (now codified in Iowa Code § 35C.1). However, in 1985, the Iowa
legislature removed the preference for promotions. 1985 Iowa Acts ch.
9
50, § 1. By removing the phrase “and promotions,” the legislature
restricted the veterans’ preference to the initial hiring decision and, as
noted in section 35C.6, to the employment discharge decision. In total,
we simply cannot interpret the phrase “appointment and employment” so
broadly that it encompasses other decisions made during employment.
An analysis of case law from other jurisdictions supports this
conclusion. In Pinther v. Wyoming, 866 P.2d 1300 (Wyo. 1994), the
Wyoming Supreme Court faced a similar challenge to a veterans’
preference statute that was very similar to the Iowa veterans’ preference
statute. A state employee, who was a veteran, argued the Wyoming
veterans’ preference statute, which stated veterans and their widows
“shall be preferred for appointment or employment,” meant he was
entitled to the preference when he applied for a job transfer. Pinther, 866
P.2d at 1303 (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 19-6-102(a) (1977)). The Wyoming
Supreme Court disagreed. Id. at 1304. The court noted the Wyoming
legislature intended for the veterans’ preference statute to give qualified
veterans the benefit of a competitive advantage in the state hiring
process. Id. The court found this benefit was fully satisfied when the
legislature gave the preference only to those veterans who were initially
seeking state employment. Id. As a result, the court concluded the
preference in “appointment or employment” did “not extend to a qualified
veteran who [was] a state employee seeking a transfer to another state
agency.” Id. at 1303-04.
Several federal courts have also concluded veterans’ preference
rights do not extend to current government employees seeking a transfer
to a different position. In Brown v. Department of Veteran’s Affairs, 247
F.3d 1222, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2001), the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit analyzed the Veterans’ Preference Act (VPA) as codified in 38
10
U.S.C. § 4214 (1994). Even though the purpose of section 4214 was
“to promote the maximum of employment and job advancement
opportunities within the Federal Government for . . . veterans,” the court
of appeals noted that “veterans are not accorded limitless rights and
benefits” and concluded veterans were not accorded any preference
under the VPA when seeking promotion or intra-agency transfers.
Brown, 247 F.3d at 1224 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 4214(a)(1)).
Also, in a suit brought by city mail carriers who desired positions
as rural mail carriers at the same salary, the Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit analyzed the VPA and stated “veterans’ preference only
applies to initial employment, not to movement of an incumbent
employee from one job to another within an agency” and “[t]he scope of
veterans’ preference cannot be enlarged by the fiction of treating within-
agency movement as initial employment.” Glenn v. U.S. Postal Serv., 939
F.2d 1516, 1521-23 (11th Cir. 1991). And finally, in Pulley v. Tennessee
Valley Authority, 368 F. Supp. 90, 93 (M.D. Tenn. 1973), a Tennessee
district court recognized the VPA provided a preference both in
appointment and retention in federal positions, but found “promotion
and non-promotion, transfer and non-transfer of employees within a
department of government [was] a matter of supervisory discretion and
not ordinarily subject to judicial review.”
In short, when divining whether the phrase “preference in
employment and appointment” should be interpreted broadly to
encompass intra-agency transfers, we find no authority indicating the
legislature, after removing the term “and promotion” from the veterans’
11
preference statute in 1985, intended veterans be given
preferences in intra-agency transfer requests. 1
Because we do not find the present veterans’ preference applicable
to intra-agency transfers, we conclude there is no inconsistency between
the transfer provisions in the collective bargaining agreement and
chapter 35C. Without this inconsistency, there is no right of action that
trumps the mandatory grievance procedures set forth in the collective
bargaining agreement.
Even if there is no inconsistency, Stammeyer contends our
decision in O’Malley v. Gundermann, 618 N.W.2d 286 (Iowa 2000),
establishes two separate avenues of relief for a veteran subject to a
collective bargaining agreement—the grievance procedures under the
collective bargaining agreement and a petition with the district court
under chapter 35C. Stammeyer argues O’Malley stands for the principle
that claims under chapter 35C are distinct from avenues of redress for
violations of the collective bargaining agreement.
We disagree. Stammeyer’s argument stretches beyond the issues
ruled upon in O’Malley. O’Malley was a veteran whose employment at
the Iowa Veterans’ Home was terminated after he sold a knife to one of
the Home’s residents. O’Malley, 618 N.W.2d at 288. O’Malley challenged
his dismissal through the grievance procedures set forth in the
1In Geyer v. Triplett, 237 Iowa 664, 669, 22 N.W.2d 329, 332 (1946), we stated
that the soldiers’ preference statute should be given a “liberal construction”; however,
we also noted that “such act should be so construed, when within reason possible, so
that its evident purpose be accomplished.” See also Krohn v. Judicial Magistrate
Appointing Comm’n, 239 N.W.2d 562, 564 (Iowa 1976) (“Although the provisions of the
soldiers preference law are to be liberally construed they should yield to the power to
select members of the judiciary. . . . To hold the soldiers preference law applicable to
appointment for the office [of judicial magistrate] would inappropriately limit and
restrict the options of the commission . . . .”). As noted above, the evident purpose of
chapter 35C was to reward veterans by giving them a preference in initial hiring
decisions.
12
applicable collective bargaining agreement. Id. at 289. This
process took several months. Once an arbitrator concluded O’Malley was
discharged for proper cause, O’Malley filed a petition in district court
seeking a writ of certiorari. Id. In this petition he alleged the action of
the arbitrator, in determining he had been discharged for just cause, was
in violation of his rights as a veteran under Iowa Code section 35C.6
(employment removal procedures). Id. The district court concluded,
however, that the act O’Malley claimed was illegal was not the
arbitrator’s decision but his employer’s termination decision. Id. The
court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the petition
because it had not been filed within thirty days of O’Malley’s termination.
Id. at 290.
We affirmed the district court’s decision. The discharge decision
was final at the time it was made, and the delay in processing the
challenge through the arbitration required by the collective bargaining
agreement rendered the petition for writ of certiorari untimely. Id. at
291-92 (citing Iowa Rule of Civil Procedure 319 (now rule 1.1402(3))
which states a petition for writ of certiorari “must be filed within thirty
days from the time the tribunal, board, or officer exceeded its jurisdiction
or otherwise acted illegally”). Because the petition for a writ of certiorari
was not filed in a timely manner, we concluded the court did not have
jurisdiction to hear the claim. Id.
The issue in O’Malley was the determination of the time frame for
filing a chapter 35C certiorari action for O’Malley’s allegedly improper
removal. Id. (“the issue here is whether O’Malley filed his petition in a
timely manner”). We were not presented with the separate and distinct
question as to whether he was required to first exhaust the grievance
procedures set forth in the collective bargaining agreement before he
13
could file his chapter 35C improper removal petition. In addition,
O’Malley is distinguished from the present case because it concerned
veterans’ rights surrounding removal from employment, not veterans’
preference rights in hiring decisions.
B. Transfer or Employment
Because a person outside the Department of Public Safety was
hired for one of the positions for which he had applied, Stammeyer
argues he should have been treated as a new applicant competing with
other applicants for a vacant position. Under this theory, he would
thereby receive the veterans’ preference and retain his right to petition
the district court directly without any reference to the collective
bargaining agreement. Stated another way, Stammeyer argues his
request for an inter-divisional transfer to DNE should be treated the
same as a request from a new, non-transferring applicant; otherwise,
there would be an unfair distinction between a current “veteran”
employee and a new hire and he would lose the preference granted in
section 35C.1.
The State contends this argument was not preserved for appellate
review because the district court did not rule on the issue and
Stammeyer did not file a motion asking the court to enlarge its findings
to rule upon the issue. The State’s argument is based on the
fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must ordinarily be
both raised and decided by the district court before we will decide them
on appeal. Wilson v. Liberty Mut. Group, 666 N.W.2d 163, 167 (Iowa
2003). “When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by
a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a
ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641
N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002). If the court does not rule on an issue and
14
neither party files a motion requesting the district court to do
so, there is nothing before us to review. Wilson, 666 N.W.2d at 167.
Such is the case at hand.
At the conclusion of its ruling, the district court stated:
For the reasons set out above, the former statute controls
over the latter, and this court does not have jurisdiction over
the present dispute. As such, there is no reason to reach the
appellee’s [the State’s] second argument regarding the
applicability of chapter 35C to intra-agency transfers.
There is nothing indicating the court ruled upon or even considered
Stammeyer’s “new hire/transfer” argument. Despite the missing ruling,
Stammeyer contends he did not need to file a further motion because “it
strains credulity to suggest that a further ruling from the district court
would be necessary to preserve error on this point.” Stammeyer claims
“the district court was presented with the argument, but in light of its
ruling on the issue, it could not reach the latter argument.”
We disagree. If there are alternative claims or defenses, and the
district court does not rule on all alternative claims or defenses, the
losing party must file a posttrial motion to preserve error on the claims or
defenses not ruled on. See, e.g., Sandbulte v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.,
343 N.W.2d 457, 466 (Iowa 1984) (“We do not pass on alternative
arguments and matters set forth in defendants’ motions for summary
judgment that were not specifically addressed by the trial court’s
ruling.”). This new hire/transfer argument is distinct from the court’s
ruling which considers whether the collective bargaining agreement
controls the grievance procedure. This can best be described as an
“even-if” argument—even if the court finds Stammeyer should have
followed the grievance procedures set forth in the collective bargaining
agreement because he was a current employee competing with other
15
current employees for a job transfer, he could still pursue a
chapter 35C claim in district court because he was (for at least one of the
positions) competing against an applicant who was not a current
employee. For whatever reason, the district court did not address
Stammeyer’s even-if argument, and Stammeyer did not file a motion
requesting that the court do so. Without such a ruling or motion
requesting a ruling, there is nothing for us to review on this issue. See
id.
IV. Conclusion
Chapter 35C does not grant a veterans’ preference for intra-agency
transfers. Therefore, Stammeyer was required to pursue his claim via
the grievance procedure set forth in the collective bargaining agreement.
We vacate the decision of the court of appeals and affirm the district
court’s order granting the State’s motion to dismiss.
DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS VACATED; DISTRICT
COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.