IN THE MATTER OF WILLIAM L. BOYAN AND ISAAC G. McNATT, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Supreme Court of New Jersey1992-04-06

127 N.J. 266604 A.2d 98

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed. The Legislature's authorization to the Salary Adjustment Committee through the 1987 and 1988 Appropriations Acts supersedes the statutory salary-step provision, and the judges were not automatically entitled to increases beyond what the committee's regulations permitted.

William Boyan and Isaac McNatt, workers' compensation judges, sought salary increases for 1987 and 1988 under a statute that referenced automatic salary steps. However, during those years, the Legislature authorized a Salary Adjustment Committee to establish salary rules for executive branch employees earning above $50,000, a category that included the judges. The committee adopted regulations capping raises for high-earning employees, and both judges received raises within those limits. When the judges challenged the cap and claimed entitlement to statutory increases, the Appellate Division sided with them.

The court reversed, holding that the Legislature's delegation of salary-setting authority through the Appropriations Acts for 1987 and 1988 took precedence over the earlier statutory provision. The Appropriations Acts empowered the committee to establish salary rules, and those acts—not the committee's regulations or the original statute—reflected the Legislature's intent for that period. The court noted that subsequent legislative amendments in 1991 clarified the salary structure for workers' compensation judges going forward, rendering the dispute moot for future years.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether workers' compensation judges were entitled to automatic salary increases under the existing statute during 1987 and 1988
Whether the Appropriations Acts delegating salary-setting authority to the Salary Adjustment Committee supersede the statutory salary-step provision
Interpretation of legislative intent regarding salary adjustments for executive branch employees

Procedural posture

The Salary Adjustment Committee denied the judges' appeal for additional raises; the Appellate Division reversed; the state's petition for certification was granted.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

The dispositive issue concerns the determination of the intent of the Legislature for granting salary increases for workers’ compensation judges. The relevant facts are uncontested. In brief, appellants, William L. Boyan and Isaac G. McNatt, claim that the Legislature intended that they are entitled to such increases in accordance with the salary steps contained in N.J.S.A. 34:15-49. Finding that appellants had not exhausted their administrative remedies, the Law Division transferred the matter to the Salary Adjustment Committee (SAC), which consists of the State Treasurer, the Commissioner of Personnel, and the Director of Budget and Accounting. During the years in question, 1987 and 1988, the Legislature authorized these officials to establish rules governing salary ranges and rates of pay. Accordingly, the SAC promulgated regulations establishing limits on raises for employees earning more than $50,000, a class of employees that includes appellants. Both judges received raises consistent with SAC-approved salary increases. Challenging the limits on their raises, appellants appealed to the SAC, which found that appellants were subject to its salary rules and that they were not automatically entitled to salary increases under N.J.S.A. 34:15-49. The Appellate Division reversed, 246 N.J.Super. 300, 587 A.2d 640, and we granted the State’s petition for certification, 126 N.J. 342, 598 A.2d 898 (1991). In the interim, the Legislature amended N.J.S.A. 34:15-49 to provide for salary increases for workers’ compensation judges based on satisfactory annual evaluations, length of service, and stated percentages of the salaries of the judges of the Superior Court. S. 3182, L.1991, c. 513. Consequently, the issue of such increases has been resolved for the future. Concerning salary increases for 1987 and 1988, we conclude that the Appellate Division erred.

The 1988 Appropriations Act, in language substantially similar to that of the 1987 Act, provided:

The State Treasurer, the Commissioner of Personnel, and the Director of the Division of Budget and Accounting shall establish rules and regulations governing salary ranges and rates of pay. The implementation of such rules and regulations shall be made effective at the beginning of the bi-weekly pay period nearest July 1,1988 or thereafter as determined by such rules and regulations, with timely notification of such rules and regulations to the Joint Budget Oversight Committee or its successor. [L. 1988, c. 47, at 348.]

Accordingly, the SAC promulgated regulations governing the salaries of employees in the executive branch, including workers compensation judges.

Through the Appropriations Act, the Legislature may delegate to the SAC the power to promulgate regulations concerning the salary of certain of those employees. In this sense, the Appropriations Act, rather than N.J.S.A. 34:15-49, expresses the legislative intent for the affected employees. Contrary to the rulings of the Appellate Division, it is the Appropriations Act, not the SAC regulations, that supersede N.J.S.A. 34:15-49. The regulations merely implement the Appropriations Act.

The judgment of the Appellate Division is reversed.

For reversal — Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI and STEIN — 7.

For affirmance — None.