7 NICS App. 19, JONES v. TULALIP TRIBES (March 2005)
IN THE TULALIP TRIBAL COURT OF APPEALS
TULALIP INDIAN RESERVATION
TULALIP, WASHINGTON
Dale M. Jones, Appellant,
v.
The Tulalip Tribes of Washington, Appellee.
No. TUL-CV-ET-2005-0001 (March 22, 2005)
SYLLABUS*
Employment court issued order affirming dismissal of tribal employee. Court of Appeals holds the requirement that a dismissal notice be signed by both the employee’s supervisor and the department manager is satisfied with a single signature where the supervisor and department manager are the same person. Employment court order affirmed.
|
Jane M. Smith, Chief Justice; Doug Nash, Justice; John Sledd, Justice. |
OPINION
Smith, C. J.:
This matter came before the Court of Appeals (COA) pursuant to a Notice of Appeal being filed by Appellant on February 3, 2005. Appellant is appealing a final judgment issued by the Employment Court on January 24, 2005. The appeal has been timely filled. Neither party requested to be allowed to file a written brief, nor was any brief received by the COA. The COA met by conference call on this date and determined that it had enough information before it to make a final determination in the matter.
SCOPE OF REVIEW
The Tulalip Court of Appeals’ scope of review of decisions from the Tulalip Employment Court is that we will only reverse the Employment Court and direct a new trial where the decision of the Employment Court is found to be arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence. The Tulalip Tribes Human Resources Ordinances 84, Section X.B.10.
7 NICS App. 19, JONES v. TULALIP TRIBES (March 2005) p. 20
DISCUSSION
Appellant is appealing the Employment Court’s (Court) decision on two (2) issues. The firs issue concerns the lack of a second signature on the Notice of Dismissal issued to him on December 7, 2004. The second issue is that Appellant alleges that he wasn’t allowed to put on his “whole case. Only let me argue the motion.”
ISSUE 1. Did the Employment Court err by finding that a second signature was not required on the Notice of Dismissal?
HRO 84, X.B.8 reads in part, “The Tulalip Employment court when adjudicating any matter pursuant to the discipline, grievances and appeal procedures created by Chapter X of this Ordinance, or of any personnel policy adopted by the Board of Directors, shall exclusively follow the express language of HRO, X.A., X.B. AND XI.B. (Emphasis added). HRO 84, X.A.7a reads in part, “Dismissal Notice a. Dismissal notice must be in writing using the notice of dismissal form, with signature of employee and supervisor showing approval of the department or division manager, and final approval from General Manager. (Emphasis added) The dismissal notice given to Appellant contains the signatures of Mr. Posey as Department/Division Manager; Marcie Home, Human Resources; and Luela Jones as General Manager. It was noted that employee refused or was not available to sign and a copy was mailed on 12/7/04. There was no signature on the Department Supervisor signature line.
A review of the record indicates that at the hearing, the Court allowed both parties to present their arguments before rendering a final decision. The Court made a timely decision to deny the appeal. In its denial, the Court found that the intent of HRO 84 was to have signatures of the supervisor and the department/division manager on the Dismissal Notice. The testimony revealed the Mr. Posey was both Appellant’s supervisor and the department/division manager. Appellant failed to persuade the Court that the lack of a second signature from the same person (Mr. Posey) on the dismissal notice resulted in substantial harm to him. The Court found that the Tribes substantially complied with the dismissal section of HRO 84 and upheld the dismissal. The Court reiterated that to require one person’s signature on both lines would “elevate form over substance”. We agree. We are not persuaded that the lack of a second signature from the same person could create such a harm to an employee that it would require a new round of grievance procedures. No where has Appellant alleged that his dismissal was inappropriate, only that there should have been a second signature. We find no error.
ISSUE 2. Did the Employment Court err by not allowing the Appellant to put on his entire case?
A further review of the record indicates that Judge Bass gave the Appellant several opportunities to expand his Motion to Dismiss, but Appellant only argued the issue of a lack of a second authorizing signature. Appellate Courts review decisions of the lower courts. It is
7 NICS App. 19, JONES v. TULALIP TRIBES (March 2005) p. 21
imperative on Appellant to argue an issue at the lower court in order to preserve his right to appeal in the Appellate Court. In this case, Appellant did not attempt to put on any additional evidence before the Court, even though he was given several opportunities to put on his “whole” case. We find that the Employment Court gave both parties ample opportunities to be heard and it committed no error on this issue.
CONCLUSION
Courts have held in prior cases that a Notice of Appeal must be able to stand on its own. When looking at the Notice of Appeal, the reviewing court must determine if there are legitimate appealable issues to be considered. Are the remedies requested allowed by law? If these thresh hold requirements are met, then the appellate court can proceed to briefing and/or oral argument. If these thresh hold issues are not met, the appellate court may decline to accept the case for review. In this case, we do not find that the Appellant has identified any issues that could be further justified by briefing and/or oral argument.
It is ORDERED that the Appeal is hereby dismiss as we find the Employment Court’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious or that substantial justice was not done. The Employment Court Order of January 24, 2005 is affirmed. This matter is remanded to the Employment court for processing consistent with this Order.
The syllabus is not a part of the Court's Opinion. The syllabus is a summary of the Opinion prepared by the publishers of this Reporter only for the convenience of the reader. Therefore, the syllabus should not be cited in whole or part as legal authority. Only the Opinion, which follows the syllabus, may be cited as legal authority.