Cutting v. McKinley

California Court of Appeal Feb 28, 1933 No. Docket No. 8780.Published

Before: Spence

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the civil service exemption for "persons employed on public works outside the city and county" applies to any employee working on a public works project located outside the city, regardless of where the employee's specific tasks were performed.

Issues

Whether the civil service exemption for persons employed on public works outside the city and county relates to the location of the project or the physical location of the employee's work.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the clause “outside the city and county” relates to the location of such projects rather than to the place of performance of the employees’ work on such projects.”

“It is a rule of law as old as the law itself, that a relative clause shall be construed to relate to the nearest antecedent that will make sense.”

SPENCE, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the trial court directing that a peremptory writ of mandate issue commanding the members of the civil service commission of the city and county of San Francisco to approve the pay-roll submitted to them in so far as it affected the salary of petitioner.

In this, opinion we will refer to respondents in the trial court as appellants and to the petitioner in the trial court as respondent. The essential facts are not in dispute. Respondent had been employed continuously by the city and county of San Francisco as a draftsman for about ten years next preceding January 8, 1932, the date upon which the , new charter of said city and county of San Francisco became effective. All of his work pertained to the Hetch Hetchy project and was performed in part outside of the city and county and in part within the city and county. Section 11 of article XIII of the former charter of said city and county (said article relating to civil service) provides: “The provisions of this article shall apply to the following offices and departments of the city and county. The County Clerk, the Assessor . . . the Board of Public Works . . . but the following deputies, clerks and employees in said offices and departments shall be exempted therefrom: the chief deputy of the county clerk . . .

persons employed on public works outside the city and county.”

(Italics ours.) Section 142 of the new charter made no such exemption but provided in part as follows: “Where existing positions that have heretofore been exempt from civil service examinations are now made subject to examination by this charter, the incumbents of such positions who have held such positions for a period of one year continuously next preceding the time that this charter shall go into effect, shall be continued in their positions as if appointed thereto after examination and' certification from a list of eligibles and shall be governed thereafter by the provisions of this charter.”

Both respondent and appellants concede that the only question involved on this appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded that the position held by respondent was one exempted from the classified civil service by the

[138]

Cutting v. McKinley

AI Brief

SPENCE, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief