Can a North Carolina county social services board adopt its own grievance procedure and appoint itself as the appeal body for personnel decisions made by the county social services director?

Plain-English summary

Counsel for the Johnston County Department of Social Services asked whether its board could appoint itself to hear employee grievances about personnel decisions made by the county social services director. The question stated that the board of county commissioners had not authorized the duty. The Attorney General answered no on those facts.

The opinion says local social services employees receiving federal grant-in-aid funds are generally subject to the State personnel system under G.S. 126-5(a). It quotes G.S. 126-11, which allows a board of county commissioners to establish a substantially equivalent county personnel system covering employees subject to its jurisdiction. It also quotes G.S. 126-9(a) on county commissioners adopting certain personnel rules. The Attorney General summarizes the relationship this way: social services employees follow the State personnel plan “unless the board of county commissioners makes changes.”

The opinion says G.S. 108A-14 gives the county social services director the duty to appoint department personnel under State merit-system rules, while G.S. 108A-9(1) gives the social services board authority to appoint the director. On the stated facts, the social services board could not confer grievance-review authority on itself. The opinion says that doing so would violate the director's statutory role and supplant authority vested in the county commissioners.

The question and answer do not decide whether the commissioners could authorize some grievance-review role for the social services board. The opinion does not analyze delegation or the effect of a particular commissioner-approved system.

Currency note

This opinion applies the personnel statutes as they stood in 1983. Check current North Carolina personnel and social services law for a present grievance.

Historical context: what the AG concluded

The Attorney General's answer is tied to the board's attempt to adopt its own procedures without commissioner authorization. G.S. 126-11 and G.S. 126-9(a) place the described county personnel-system and rulemaking choices with the board of county commissioners. G.S. 108A-14 places appointment of department staff with the director. The social services board cannot simply appoint itself as a review panel for the director's decisions under those circumstances.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion identifies three roles. The State personnel plan generally governs local social services employees receiving federal grant-in-aid funds. County commissioners may make the changes authorized in Chapter 126, including a substantially equivalent county system under G.S. 126-11. The county social services director appoints necessary department personnel under merit-system rules, while the social services board appoints the director.

The opinion does not set out a grievance procedure for employees or explain what authorization by commissioners, if any, could change the board's role.

Common questions

Could the Johnston County social services board make itself the appeal panel?

No. The opinion says it could not confer that authority on itself when the county commissioners had not authorized the duty.

Who could make the county-level personnel changes discussed in the opinion?

The opinion identifies the board of county commissioners. It quotes G.S. 126-11 on a substantially equivalent county system and G.S. 126-9(a) on certain county personnel rules.

Did the opinion decide whether commissioners could delegate an appeal role to the social services board?

No. The question expressly assumed that commissioners had not authorized the duty. The opinion does not analyze a delegation or a commissioner-approved grievance procedure.

Did the opinion tell employees where to file a grievance?

No. It identifies the applicable personnel framework and decides the social services board cannot appoint itself as a review panel on these facts, but it does not give grievance-filing steps.

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/county-social-services-boards-authority-in-personnel-matters/

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 126-1
• N.C.G.S. § 126-5(a)
• N.C.G.S. § 126-9(a)
• N.C.G.S. § 126-11
• N.C.G.S. § 108A-9(1)
• N.C.G.S. § 108A-14

Original opinion text

Requested By: W. A. Holland, Jr., Esquire, Counsel for the Johnston County Department of Social Services

Question: May a county board of social services appoint itself as an appeal body to hear and rule upon employee grievances, where this duty has not been authorized by the board of county commissioners?

Conclusion: No.

The facts underlying this question are as follows. The county social services board wishes to hear appeals from personnel decisions made by the county social services director. The board proposes to adopt procedures for that purpose. The local board of county commissioners has not authorized such an activity by the social services board.

The General Statutes show that the county board of social services cannot undertake this responsibility. First, as a general rule, local social services employees are part of the state personnel system.

"The provisions of this Chapter [126] shall apply to all State employees not herein exempt, and to employees of local social services departments . . . which receive federal grant-in-aid funds. . . ."

G.S. 126-5(a).

However, local officials may establish local rules and local personnel systems, "to the extent that local governing boards are authorized by the State" to do so. G.S. 126-1.

In accordance with the provisions just quoted, G.S. 126-11 reads as follows:

"The board of county commissioners of any county which shall establish and maintain a personnel system for all employees of the county subject to its jurisdiction, which system is found from time to time by the State Personnel Commission to be substantially equivalent to the system established under Article 1 of his Chapter for employees of local welfare departments, public health departments, and mental health clinics, may include employees of these local agencies within the terms of such systems. Employees covered by that shall be exempt from the provisions of Article 1 of this Chapter."

To that end, the General Statutes say,

"When a board of county commissioners adopt rules and regulations governing annual leave, sick leave, hours of work, holidays and the administration of the pay plan for county employees generally and the county rules and regulations are filed with the State Personnel Director, the county rules will supercede the rules adopted by the State Personnel Commission as to the county employees otherwise subject to this Chapter."

G.S. 126-9(a).

Summing up these statutes, we see that social services employees are subject to the provisions of the State personnel plan unless the board of county commissioners makes changes.

Turning to the social services statutes, we find that the county director of social services has the duty "to appoint necessary personnel of the county department of social services in accordance with the merit system rules of the State Personnel Commission." G.S. 108A-14. The county board of social services has no statutory authority in personnel matters except to appoint the county director in accordance with the State merit system. G.S. 108A-9(1)

Therefore, in light of these statutes, the social services board cannot confer upon itself the authority which the Johnston County Board wishes to exercise. To do so would violate G.S. 108A-14. Also, it would supplant the authority vested in the county commissioners by G.S. 126-11.

For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the General Statutes prevent the Johnston County Board of Social Services from constituting itself as a review panel to review personnel decisions made by the local county director of social services.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney General

Steven Mansfield Shaber
Assistant Attorney General