Which Department of Correction employees qualify for the Salary Continuation Plan when injured on the job?

Plain-English summary

The 1979 General Assembly created a Salary Continuation Plan to fully cover the salary of certain law enforcement officers who become unable to work because of a job-related injury or occupational disease. The Department of Correction's personnel director asked the AG which DOC employees are covered.

The AG laid out a two-part test based on G.S. 143-166.13:

1. The employee must be subject to the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Act. That Act, in Chapter 17C, sets up the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission. The Commission defines who counts as a "criminal justice officer" through interpretive rules (12 NCAC 9A .0103). For DOC, that definition is limited to specific job classifications listed on pages 1-3 of the Commission's rule.

2. The employee's position must fall within one of three specific categories listed in G.S. 143-166.13(a):
   - State Correctional Officers
   - State Probation and Parole Officers
   - Sworn State Law Enforcement Officers with the power of arrest

Both prongs must be met. If a position is not in the Commission's interpretive rule, it fails the first prong. If a position is in the rule but does not fall within one of the three listed categories, it fails the second prong.

The AG used ordinary-meaning statutory construction to define each category:

• State Correctional Officer: someone (1) employed by the State, (2) in the prison system, and (3) in the capacity of an officer. The category is defined further by G.S. 148-4 and the Commission's rule at 12 NCAC 9A .0103(5).
• State Probation and Parole Officer: someone (1) employed by the State who (2) has supervisory responsibility over (3) probationers or parolees. This includes regular probation/parole officers, surveillance officers, intake officers, and intensive officers when certified by the Commission.
• Sworn State Law Enforcement Officer with the power of arrest: someone (1) employed by the State, (2) as a sworn law enforcement officer, with (3) the power of arrest.

The opinion's most consequential application was on parole case analysts. Even though the Commission's rule includes case analysts within the "criminal justice officer" category, the Salary Continuation Plan does not list them as covered persons. So parole case analysts are not in the Plan, despite holding criminal justice certification.

The AG also explained the legislative intent. G.S. 143-166.13 covers personnel who are directly involved in law enforcement, not those in administrative or support roles. Even if administrative staff hold certifications, they do not get full salary continuation under this Plan if their position falls outside the listed categories.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

The Salary Continuation Plan framework, the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Act, and the Department of Correction's organizational structure have all changed substantially since 1987 (DOC is now the Department of Adult Correction, with related reorganizations in adult correction, juvenile justice, and parole administration). The Commission's interpretive rules in 12 NCAC 9A have been amended multiple times. An employee or HR administrator evaluating current eligibility should check the current statute, the current Commission rules, and the current DOC personnel policies.

Common questions

Q: I'm a DOC employee injured on the job. How do I know if the Plan covers me?
A: At the time of the opinion, the test ran through two filters. First, is your position on the Commission's interpretive rule list? Second, does it fit within one of the three statutory categories (Correctional Officer, Probation/Parole Officer, or Sworn LEO with arrest power)? If both are yes, you are likely covered. If either is no, you are not.

Q: I'm a parole case analyst. The Commission certifies me but the Plan does not cover me?
A: That was the AG's conclusion as of 1987. Case analysts are within the Commission's "criminal justice officer" category but not in the Plan's three listed coverage categories. The AG read G.S. 143-166.13 as exclusive: only positions in the three categories are covered.

Q: What about administrative support staff who occasionally interact with prisoners or files?
A: The AG read the Plan as designed for people "directly involved in enforcement of the law," not those providing support services. Administrative employees, even within DOC, were not covered.

Q: How is this different from regular Workers' Comp?
A: Workers' Comp provides partial wage replacement; the Salary Continuation Plan provides full salary continuation. The Plan was the legislature's way of recognizing that the law enforcement role carries elevated risk and that the people taking those risks should be made whole when injured on the job.

Background and statutory framework

Two statutes work together:

• G.S. 143-166.13 lists the three categories of covered employees and ties coverage to being "subject to the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Act."
• Chapter 17C (the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Act) creates the Commission, which sets minimum education and training standards for entry-level criminal justice positions and certifies candidates who meet those standards. G.S. 17C-2(c) defines "criminal justice officer" broadly to include sworn law enforcement officers with the power of arrest, state correctional officers, state probation and parole officers, supervisory and administrative personnel of local confinement facilities, and youth correctional officers.

The Commission's interpretive rule (adopted August 28, 1987) further refines who counts as a criminal justice officer within DOC. The rule provides a closed list of classifications: anything not on the list does not qualify under prong one of the AG's test.

The AG's interpretive methodology drew on the older statutory construction cases (Kendall v. Stafford, Allen v. Town of Reidsville, Abernethy v. Board of Commissioners). The reasoning emphasized: (1) consider the law as it existed at enactment, (2) read related statutes together as one law, and (3) give words their ordinary meaning unless context suggests otherwise. That methodology supported reading G.S. 143-166.13 as listing closed categories rather than as an illustrative grant of coverage.

The parole case analyst conclusion is the most notable practical takeaway. Holding a Commission certification is necessary but not sufficient. Being on the Commission's "criminal justice officer" list does not put you in the Plan if your job title is not also one of the three categories the legislature singled out.

Citations

• N.C.G.S. § 17C-2(c) (definition of "criminal justice officer")
• N.C.G.S. § 17C-6 (Commission rulemaking authority)
• N.C.G.S. § 17C-6(a)(2) (Commission to establish minimum standards)
• N.C.G.S. § 17C-6(a)(3) (Commission to certify qualified candidates)
• N.C.G.S. § 17C-10 (standards setting)
• N.C.G.S. § 143-166.13 (Salary Continuation Plan; covered categories)
• N.C.G.S. § 143-166.13(a)(2) (State Correctional Officers)
• N.C.G.S. § 143-166.13(a)(4) (Sworn State LEOs with power of arrest)
• N.C.G.S. § 148-4 et seq. (DOC personnel statutes)
• 12 NCAC 9A .0103 (Commission's interpretive rule listing criminal justice officer classifications)
• Kendall v. Stafford, 178 N.C. 461, 101 S.E. 15 (1919) (statutory construction principles)
• Allen v. Town of Reidsville, 178 N.C. 513, 101 S.E. 267 (1919) (statutes in pari materia)
• Abernethy v. Board of Commissioners, 169 N.C. 631, 86 S.E. 577 (1915) (ordinary meaning of words)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/salary-continuation-plan/

Original opinion text

Requested By:

Mr. Gerald Hodnett
Personnel Director, Department of Correction

Question:

Which employees of the N.C. Department of Correction are covered by the Salary Continuation Plan codified at G.S. 143-166.13?

Conclusion:

Most of the employees certified by the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission are covered by the Salary Continuation Plan of 143-166.13. If an employee is in a position which (1) requires certification by the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and (2) is within a category listed in N.C.G.S. 143-166.13 as defined by the Commission, the employee is covered by the Plan. Otherwise, the employee is not covered.

Opinion:

The 1979 General Assembly enacted legislation providing for a salary continuation plan for certain law enforcement officers. The people covered by the plan are listed in G.S. 143-166.13. That statute provides in pertinent part,

"(a) the following persons who are subject to the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Act are entitled to benefits under this article: . . . 2. State Correctional Officers, Department of Corrections; 3. State Probation and Parole Officers, Department of Correction; 4. Sworn State Law Enforcement Officers with the power of arrest, Department of Correction; . . . ."

Thus, G.S. 143-166.13 establishes a two part test for coverage by the Salary Continuation Plan. First, the person must be subject to the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Act. Second, the person must be included in one of the three categories of employees listed above.

B. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE TRAINING AND STANDARDS ACT

The Criminal Justice Education Training and Standards Act is codified in Chapter 17C of the North Carolina General Statutes. This act establishes a mechanism whereby criminal justice officers are provided professional education and training. Pursuant to the act, a commission is appointed to establish minimum educational and training standards which must be met in order to qualify for entry level employment as a criminal justice officer. G.S. 17C-6(a)(2); also G.S. 17C-10(a), (b), (c) and (d). Candidates who meet these standards are then certified as qualified for employment. G.S. 17C-6(a)(3). For purposes of the act, "criminal justice officer" is defined by G.S. 17C-2(c) to include, "the administrative and subordinate personnel of all of the departments, agencies, units or entities comprising the 'criminal justice agencies,' as defined in subsection (a), who are sworn law enforcement officers, both State and local, with the power of arrest; State correctional officers; State probation and parole officers; officers, supervisory and administrative personnel of local confinement facilities; or youth correctional officers."

Pursuant to its rule making authority granted by G.S. 17C-6 the North Carolina Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission adopted an advisory interpretative rule on August 28, 1987 further defining the term "criminal justice officer". As defined by the interpretative rule, the category of "criminal justice officer" within the Department of Correction includes and is limited to those classification of employees specifically listed on pages 1, 2, and 3 of the interpretative rule, a copy of which is hereto attached and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.

Thus, if a given job classification is not contained in this interpretative rule then the first criteria of G.S. 143-166.13 is not met and the employee is not covered by the Salary Continuation Plan. If the employee's classification is included in the listing contained in the interpretative rule and the employee is certified by the Commission, then one must look further to determine if the employee's classification also is included in the specific listing contained in G.S. 143-166.13.

C. THE SALARY CONTINUATION PLAN: EMPLOYEES DESIGNATED BY G.S. 143-166.13

There has been no prior case in North Carolina interpreting the salary continuation statute discussed herein. Furthermore, neither the Sessions Laws, House Journal, Senate Journal nor the Institute of Government Daily Reports provides assistance in the interpretation of the act. In the absence of such precedent one must turn to the general rules for the construction of statutes. It has been said that to discover the true meaning of a statute, consideration should be given the law as it existed at the time of its enactment, the public policy as declared in judicial opinions and legislative acts, the public interest and the purpose of the act in question. Kendall vs Stafford, 178 N.C. 461, 101 S.E. 15 (1919). Also, statutes relating to the same subject matter should be construed in connection with each other as together constituting one law, giving effect to all parts of the statute when possible; legislative history may be considered in the effort to ascertain the uniform and consistent purpose of the legislature. Allen vs Town of Reidsville, 178 N.C. 513, 101 S.E. 267 (1919). Finally, when construing a statute the words used therein will be given their ordinary meaning, unless it appears from context that they should be given a different interpretation. Abernethy vs Board of Commissioners, 169 N.C. 631, 86 S.E. 577 (1915).

Consideration of G.S. 143-166.13 in its entirety reveals a listing of personnel who have primary responsibility for enforcement of the laws of North Carolina. Considered as a whole, the statute covers individuals who are directly involved in enforcement of the law; thus, it is clear that the legislative intent was to provide full salary continuation benefits to these employees due to any incapacity suffered as a result of an injury by accident or an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the performance of their duties. This law was not intended to provide benefits to employees serving in administrative capacities or providing support services to those employees in the categories specifically listed.

By its express language the Salary Continuation Plan covers people subject to the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Act who are within the category of "State Correctional Officers". G.S. 143-166.13(a)(2). Applying the ordinary meaning standard to this phrase, it appears that it describes an individual who is (1) employed by the State, (2) in the prison system, and (3) in the capacity of an officer. This interpretation is supported by G.S. 148-4 et seq and by the definition of Correctional Officer as adopted by the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission. 12 NCAC 9A .0103 (5). Thus if a person is employed in a position falling within the category as defined by the Commission, he is covered by the Plan if he is certified.

Similarly, the term "state probation and parole officers" requires that the employee (1) be employed by the State, and (2) have supervisory responsibility over (3) probationers or parolees. As interpreted, this category would include regular probation parole officers, surveillance officers, intake officers and intensive officers certified by the Commission. 12 NCAC 9A .0103 (23), (26), (24) and (25).

Further, the term "sworn State law enforcement officers with the power of arrest" requires that the individual (1) be employed by the State, (2) as a sworn law enforcement officer and (3) have the power of arrest. Thus, other individuals employed by the Department of Correction who have the power of arrest come within this category if certified by the Commission. G.S. 143-166.13(a)(4); 12 NCAC 9A .0103(6).

Finally, although parole case analysts are included in the category of "Criminal Justice Officers" as defined by the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission (12 NCAC 9A .0103(6)) the Salary Continuation Plan does not list them as covered persons. G.S. § 143-166.13. Thus, case analysts are not covered by the Plan.

D. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, most of the employees certified by the Criminal Justice Training and Standards Commission are covered by the Salary Continuation Plan of 143-166.13. If an employee is in a position which (1) requires certification by the Criminal Justice Education and Training Standards Commission and (2) is within a category listed in G.S. § 143-166.13 as defined by the Commission, the employee is covered by the Plan. Otherwise the employee is not covered.

Lacy H. Thornburg
Attorney General

D. Sigsbee Miller
Associate Attorney General