This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
Thirty-six officers who worked in transportation and one SWAT unit member at the Utah State Prison allege in a newly filed complaint that the Utah Department of Corrections breached a pay agreement that assured they would receive higher wages.
The officers are seeking back pay, retirement fund contributions and interest on the earnings they claim they should have received under a long-standing agreement.
According to the lawsuit filed Wednesdayin 3rd District Court, a former deputy warden implemented a higher pay rate for transportation officers because corrections had trouble attracting and retaining such employees. The agreement adopted in 1996 provided an 11 percent salary incentive, equivalent to a four-step pay differential, to transportation and SWAT officers on the basis of the complexity of the assignment, knowledge and specialized training required. The Utah Department of Corrections also agreed that if an officer was within three or fewer steps of the top pay scale, it would provide an incentive increase to close that gap.
But Tom Patterson, current corrections director, subsequently did away with the pay differential, the lawsuit says. The transportation officers subsequently filed a grievance, which led to adoption of a new agreement in 2000 between the currently employed officers and the Utah Department of Corrections that, among other things, reinstituted the pay differential. The department also agreed to extend essentially the same deal to newly hired transportation officers.
In 2008, the department shifted the transportation unit into a straight-line career ladder pay scale like that used for other corrections' employees, the lawsuit states, once again eliminating the pay differential. Transportation officers did not become aware of the policy change until the fall of 2010, when the unit again filed a grievance alleging the department had breached its agreement.
About a year later, Patterson rejected the grievance, denying any basis for the workers' complaint, the lawsuit says. Attempts to resolve the dispute failed, leading to the lawsuit.
In their lawsuit the officers bolster their claim by pointing to the fact that back in 2008, shortly after the pay scale was altered, Patterson provided back wages and retirement fund contributions to another officer who filed an individual grievance about his earnings.
The department "breached this covenant of good faith and fair dealing by unilaterally changing the terms of the agreements and failing to abide by the promises it made in the agreements," the lawsuit states.
Mike Haddon, the department's executive coordinator, declined to comment because the litigation is pending.
Attorneys for the officers were not immediately available for comment about the lawsuit.