concurring.
I fully concur with Part II of the majority opinion. With regard to Parts I and III, I disagree with the analysis but concur with the result.
Demotion
The Department of Correction (DOC) argues that the findings entered by the State Personnel Commission (Commission) support its conclusions with regard to the demotion and therefore the trial court erred in reversing this portion of the Order of the Commission. This raises the issue of whether the Commission’s Order is affected by an error of law, and this Court is required to review the Order of the Commission de novo. See Brooks v. Ansco & Assocs., 114 N.C. App. 711, 716-17, 443 S.E.2d 89, 92 (1994) (“error of law . . . exists if a conclusion of law ... is not supported by the findings of fact”). Thus, the question is whether the findings entered by the Commission support its conclusion that there existed “just cause for Petitioner’s demotion.” I agree with the majority that the findings do not support this conclusion.
Transfer
Glenn E. Myers (Myers) argues that if the order of demotion is rescinded then it follows that the order of transfer must be rescinded and the trial court erred in not doing so. I disagree. The transfer of Myers is not a matter within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission or the trial court. N.C.G.S. § 126-35(a) (1993) (providing for appeal to Commission by State employee “discharged, suspended, or demoted”); cf. N.C.G.S. § 126-36 (1993) (State employee entitled to appeal to Commission where request for transfer denied because of discrimination). Therefore, the transfer directed by the DOC remains in full force and effect and language in the judgment of the trial court relating to the transfer is mere surplusage.