Ford v. Department of Water and Power

California Court of Appeal Feb 13, 1935 No. Civ. 10070Published

Before: Crail

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandate because the city failed to comply with charter provisions requiring the displacement of junior employees with less seniority, instead improperly creating and then abolishing a new position for the petitioner.

Issues

Whether the city's actions constituted a valid 'displacement' of a junior employee under section 125 of the city charter.
Whether the court has jurisdiction to grant a writ of mandate in this matter.
Whether the petitioner's claim for salary is barred by laches or failure to file a timely claim.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The section of the charter means exactly what it says— “shall be entitled to displace”. In other words, to crowd out, to take the place of”

“Creating a new position and then filling the new position is not “displacing” within the meaning of the section.”

“A writ of mandate will therefore issue requiring the respondents to comply with the city charter as above indicated and to pay the petitioner his salary”

CRAIL, J.

This is a proceeding in mandate to compel the respondents 'to follow the provisions of section 125 of the city charter under which petitioner claims that he is entitled to displace one of the persons holding a position of junior civil engineer grade B of said department “who has a shorter length of service in such class-group and in classes of higher rank”; and further to compel the respondents to pay to petitioner the salary due him from the twelfth day of September, 1933, until he is so placed on duty.

The petitioner entered the classified service of the city as early as 1906, but he separated himself therefrom for a short period and is not entitled to credit on his seniority until the period commencing December 12, 1923, when he again entered the service of the Department of Water

[528]

and Power in the position of junior civil engineer grade B. Prom that time on he served continuously under the civil service system of the respondents, although he was promoted from time to time to positions in classes of higher rank; During his last three years and until he was suspended petitioner held and occupied the position of assistant right of way and land agent. On August 29, 1933, this position was abolished by resolution of the board and the petitioner was suspended. Upon his protest and within a few days thereafter he was notified that under the provisions of section 125 of the charter he was entitled to displace a person in the class-group of junior civil engineer grade B, as he had formerly held such a position, and there was at that time a person serving in that class-group who had a shorter length of service therein and in classes of higher rank, and that he should report for duty on September 11, 1933. At the time he appeared for such duty there were two persons, to wit, H. G. Butterfield and W. K. Kierulff, -serving in the class-group of junior civil engineer grade B who had shorter lengths of service than petitioner in that class-group and in classes of higher rank, and under the express provisions of the section the petitioner had a clear legal right to

displace

one or the other of them. Instead of displacing one of these employees, thé commission increased the number by one and placed petitioner in the new position. Under this arrangement the petitioner’s service

Ford v. Department of Water and Power

AI Brief

CRAIL, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief