Does the Office of State Personnel's career banding project, which regroups job classifications into bands with associated salary ranges for State Personnel Commission positions, require formal APA rulemaking before implementation?

Plain-English summary

The Office of State Personnel (OSP) wanted to launch a "career banding" project: a new way of grouping job classifications into bands with associated salary ranges for positions under the State Personnel Commission's jurisdiction. Thomas Wright at OSP asked the AG whether the project required formal APA rulemaking under Chapter 150B before implementation.

Senior Deputy AG Ann Reed (with Special Deputy Lars Nance and Assistant AG Valerie Bateman) said no. The answer turned on a careful reading of § 150B-2(8a)(i), the APA's definition of "rule." That subsection expressly excludes from the definition of "rule" any "job classification standards, job qualifications, and salaries established for positions under the jurisdiction of the State Personnel Commission."

Career banding involves regrouping existing classifications and salaries into bands. Since the underlying classifications and salaries are themselves exempted from "rule" status under the APA, a change in how they are organized into bands likewise falls outside the formal rule definition. The AG reasoned by applying ordinary statutory grammar (Dunn v. Pacific Employers, Smith Chapel Baptist Church) and the plain-language canon (Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, BSA) to give "job classification standards" and "salaries" their usual meanings.

The practical result stated by the opinion is that a mere change in how current classifications and salary ranges are assigned to positions under the State Personnel Commission's jurisdiction is exempt from the formal definition of "rule" under Chapter 150B.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2002. 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 The State Personnel Commission has since been replaced by the State Human Resources Commission as part of broader personnel-system reorganization. The APA exclusion in § 150B-2(8a)(i) may have been amended or renumbered. Anyone considering whether a current personnel-related change requires APA rulemaking should consult the current Chapter 150B and any updates to the State Human Resources Act.

Background and statutory framework

What career banding is. Career banding is a personnel reform that replaces a large number of narrow job classifications with broader "bands" or pay ranges. Each band covers multiple traditional classifications and provides more flexibility for managers to pay employees within a wider salary range based on competencies and contributions rather than rigid step-and-grade structures. NC's effort in the early 2000s was part of a broader national trend in public-sector HR.

Why the APA exclusion matters. The opinion applies the exclusion in § 150B-2(8a)(i) to the described change in how current classifications and salary ranges are assigned to positions under the State Personnel Commission's jurisdiction.

Plain-meaning analysis. Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham (1999) and Dunn v. Pacific Employers (1992) hold that ordinary grammar applies when interpreting statutes. Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, BSA (1988) holds that clear statutory language gets its plain and definite meaning without judicial gloss. The AG used these canons to read § 150B-2(8a)(i) literally: job classification standards and salaries are excluded, and rearranging them is still job classification work.

The scope of the exclusion. The exclusion is limited to positions "under the jurisdiction of the State Personnel Commission." Positions outside SPC jurisdiction (faculty positions at UNC, certain exempt positions) may be governed by different rules. The opinion does not extend the exclusion beyond SPC's jurisdiction.

Common questions

Q: Did this opinion let OSP skip all process, or just APA rulemaking?

A: The opinion answers only whether the career-banding project is a formal "rule" under Chapter 150B. It concludes that a mere change in how current classifications and salary ranges are assigned to positions under the State Personnel Commission's jurisdiction is exempt from that definition.

Q: Could a state employee challenge career banding as unlawful for skipping rulemaking?

A: The opinion does not address whether an employee could bring such a challenge or how a court would decide one. It addresses only whether the described change falls within the APA's formal definition of "rule."

Q: What about salary changes for individual employees?

A: The opinion addresses the framework for grouping current classifications and salary ranges into bands. It does not address individual salary actions.

Q: Did career banding require legislative authorization?

A: The opinion does not address the scope of the SPC's or OSP's statutory authority or whether new legislation is required. It concludes only that the described change in how current classifications and salary ranges are assigned is exempt from the APA definition of "rule."

Citations

Statutes:

• N.C.G.S. § 150B-2(8a)(i) (definition of "rule" excludes job classification standards, qualifications, and salaries under SPC jurisdiction)
• N.C.G.S. Chapter 150B (Administrative Procedure Act)

Cases:

• Dunn v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 129, 418 S.E.2d 645 (1992) (ordinary rules of grammar in statutory construction)
• Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, BSA, 322 N.C. 271, 367 S.E.2d 655 (1988) (clear statute gets plain and definite meaning)
• Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 517 S.E.2d 874 (1999) (plain meaning canon)

Source

• Landing page: https://ncdoj.gov/opinions/rulemaking-for-career-banding-classification-of-state-employees/

Original opinion text

Advisory Opinion: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 150B-2(8a)(i)
Rulemaking for Career Banding Classification of State Employees

Dear Thom:

In your letter of April 11, 2002, you ask our opinion regarding whether the career banding project which the Office of State Personnel plans to implement requires formal rules in order to be implemented.

You cite to G.S. 150B-2(8a)(i). This subsection defines the word "rule" as used in Chapter 150B, the Administrative Procedure Act, and specifically excludes from the definition of "rule" "[j]ob classification standards, job qualifications, and salaries established for positions under the jurisdiction of the State Personnel Commission."

In construing the meaning of the words "job classification standards" and "salaries," we have assumed that these words have their usual meaning. " 'Ordinary rules of grammar apply when ascertaining the meaning of a statute.' Dunn v. Pacific Employers Ins. Co., 332 N.C. 129, 134, 418 S.E.2d 645, 648 (1992). 'When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there is no room for judicial construction, and the courts must give it its plain and definite meaning.' Lemons v. Old Hickory Council, BSA, 322 N.C. 271, 276, 367 S.E.2d 655, 658 (1988)." Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 811, 517 S.E.2d 874, 878 (1999).

As we understand career banding, this is a method by which certain classifications of positions will be grouped together for the purpose of establishing certain salary ranges for these groups. We understand that currently the classification of positions subject to the jurisdiction of the State Personnel Commission, and the salaries attached to those groups, are not the subject of any rules approved by the State Personnel Commission and adopted by the Office of State Personnel. It is our opinion that a mere change in the manner in which current classifications and salary ranges are assigned to various positions under the State Personnel Commission's jurisdiction would likewise be exempted from the formal definition of "rule" under Chapter 150B.

We hope that the above has been helpful. If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to let us know.

Sincerely,

Ann Reed
Senior Deputy Attorney General

Lars F. Nance
Special Deputy Attorney General

Valerie L. Bateman
Assistant Attorney General