Hinton v. Bahrs (1912) · DecisionDepot

Hinton v. Bahrs

Name: California Superior Court Tentative Rulings
Creator: DecisionDepot
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

California Court of Appeal Jan 22, 1912 No. Civ. No. 880.Published

Before: Beatty, Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a civil service commission's classification of employees based on salary rather than duties was invalid under the city charter, and therefore the commission properly abolished such classification and could not be compelled to restore the resulting list of eligibles.

Issues

Whether a civil service commission may classify employees based on salary rather than the duties of the position.
Whether the commission may be compelled by writ of mandate to restore a list of eligibles created under an invalid classification.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the classification of March 30, 1909, as to salaries -was not in accordance with the provisions of the charter, and that therefore the commission properly abandoned it”

“The respondents were warranted in' their action of March 7, 1910, when they rescinded the resolution of March 30, 1909, abolishing the classification according to salaries and restoring the former classification based on duties to be performed.”

Synopsis

San Francisco Charter—Classification of Clerical Service—Duties of Office—Improper Basis of Salaries—Rescission—Mandamus. The charter of the city and county of San Francisco requires the clerical service thereof to be based upon the duties to be performed by the clerks as classified by departments, and a classification by salaries is unauthorized by the charter. Where the municipal civil service commission had made an improper classification of the clerical service, by salaries, they were justified in rescinding the same and restoring a former classification as authorized by the charter; and a writ of mandate will not lie to compel the commissioners to restore the list of eligible» based upon an examination held under the classification by salaries.

Opinion — Kerrigan

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of respondents entered upon an order sustaining a general demurrer to the second amended petition for a writ of mandate.

The petition alleges: “That on June 9, 1908, the said commission created ‘Class XXII. Clerks (Class b) ’ within ‘Division A.—Clerical service, ’ of the classification of the civil service of said city and county. That subsequently, on March 30, 1909, said commission changed the designation of said class to ‘Class IV—Clerks (Class b).’ On said March 30 said commission for the first time defined said class as follows: ‘Resolved, that all permanent positions as timekeepers, storekeepers, tabulators, filing clerks, and other positions having similar duties, and all permanent clerkships carrying salaries of $1,440 per annum, or less, be and are hereby classified under the designation ‘Clerks (Class B).’ And further ‘That applicants who qualify in this examination be eligible only for appointment to permanent positions carrying salaries of $1,440 or less. ’ That prior to said March 30, 1909, there had been created by said civil service commission certain classes of experienced clerks in the classified civil service of said city and county of San Francisco, to wit: Experienced clerks, auditor’s office; experienced clerks, board of public works; experienced clerks, board of health; and experienced clerks, tax collector’s office. That on said March 30,1909, the said cavil service commission did strike from said classified civil service list said classes of experienced clerks, auditor’s office, experienced

[55]

clerks, board of public works, and experienced clerks, board of health. And further said civil service commission did, on said March 30, pass a resolution to the effect that an examination for applicants for positions as clerks, class B, would be held on April 24, 1909.

‘‘ That said commission made rules to carry out the purposes of Article XIII of the charter of said city and county and in particular for examinations to be held thereunder; that thereafter, on the twenty-fourth day of April, 1909, it gave an examination for Clerks, Class B’ under the above-mentioned classification . . . ,” resulting in the making up of a list of eligibles for this class, which included the name of the petitioner with many others, all of whom successfully passed the examination.

Hinton v. Bahrs

AI Brief

Synopsis

Opinion — Kerrigan

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

Dissent — Beatty

BEATTY, C. J.

AI Brief