 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] INTL. UNION v. IOWA DEPT. OF WORKFORCE DEV.6/12/2002
A labor union contends the State is failing to regulate workers' compensation claims as required by law. The merits of the contention have not been considered because of agency rulings that neither of the two administrative proceedings (a petition for declaratory order and a contested case petition) were appropriate. The matter is before us on appeal from an order of the district court, sitting on review of agency action, which affirmed the agency determination. We also affirm.
The allegations, though conclusory, are serious. The petitioner, United Auto, Aerospace, Agriculture, and Implement Workers of America (the Union), contends state agencies are neglecting both "compliance" and "adjudicatory" functions in processing workers' compensation claims. Respondent agencies are the Iowa Department of Workforce Development (IWD) and the Division of Workers' Compensation (DWC). Under Iowa Code section 84A.1(2) (1999) the director of IWD is required to "direct the administrative and compliance functions" of DWC.
The Union's first petition before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner was for "a declaratory order involving compliance statutes, rules and policies." It sought seven orders declaring the responsibilities of IWD and DWC, all of which the Union characterized as "compliance" functions, and requested an order compelling IWD and DWC "to enforce compliance." The commissioner determined the questions presented were not appropriate for declaratory ruling and declined the petition.
The Union, as complainant, also filed what is called a "contested case petition re compliance," naming IWD and DWC as defendants and raising exactly the same issues. In both the Union is asking for an advisory opinion declaring the agencies in the past have not been doing their job in resolving disputes between the Union members and their employers (and employers' insurers). The commissioner directed the Union to amend this petition or to provide authority that a contested case proceeding was appropriate for the matters raised. The Union neither amended nor submitted any response to the order, and the commissioner also dismissed that petition.
Both rulings were affirmed on judicial review and have been consolidated on the Union's appeal to us. Our inquiry is strictly limited to whether the district court correctly applied the law. IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 413 (Iowa 2001). The burden of proving error is on the party asserting it, in this case the Union. Iowa Code § 17A.19(8)(a).
I. State agencies adopt rules for declaratory orders in accordance with Iowa Code section 17A.9. Iowa's workers' compensation rules provide for declaratory orders. Iowa Admin. Code r. 876-5.1 et. seq. If the commissioner declines to issue such a ruling, the reasons for doing so must be specified. Iowa Code § 17A.9(5)(d); Iowa Admin. Code r. 876-5.9(2). The commissioner's refusal to issue a declaratory order here relied on at least six grounds.
Declaratory rulings by administrative agencies serve a useful purpose quite similar to declaratory judgments in court proceedings. That purpose is to permit "persons to seek formal opinions on the effect of future transactions and arrange their affairs accordingly." Women Aware v. Reagen, 331 N.W.2d 88, 92 (Iowa 1983) (citing Arthur Bonfield, The Iowa Administrative Procedure Act: Background, Construction, Applicability, Public Access To Agency Law, The Rulemaking Process, 60 Iowa L. Rev. 731, 807 (1975) [hereinafter Bonfield]). Declaratory rulings may be based on hypothetical facts. Bennett v. Iowa Dep't of Nat'l Res., 573 N.W.2d 25, 26 (Iowa 1997). Judicial review of a declination to issue declaratory orders is far from de novo. Th
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|