Barry v. Jackson

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 1916 No. Civ. No. 1799.Published

Before: Kerrigan

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the city council could not circumvent civil service protections by abolishing positions and creating new ones with different names when the underlying duties remained identical. Consequently, the civil service board's findings that the positions were substantially the same were binding, and the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement.

Issues

Whether the city council's repeal of an ordinance and creation of new positions effectively abolished the petitioners' civil service status.
Whether the civil service board had the authority to determine that the duties of the new positions were identical to the old ones, thereby requiring the reinstatement of the petitioners.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the civil service board, both in its investigation undertaken for the purpose of classifying the so-called new positions, and upon the formal hearing of the appeal of the petitioners, received all available testimony, and decided in both proceedings that the positions under the old and new ordinances were substantially the same”

“It is not claimed — or in any event no evidence was introduced at the trial in the superior court — to show that the conclusions reached by the civil service board were not sustained by sufficient evidence, and hence this court in common with the trial court is bound by the conclusions of the civil service board.”

Synopsis

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Alameda County. William H. Donahue, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

KERRIGAN, J.

This is an appeal from a judgment ordering a peremptory writ of mandate to issue, directing the appellant, as commissioner of public health and safety of the city of Oakland, to reinstate the respondents, petitioners in the trial court, to certain positions in the health department, under and in conformity with the findings and decision of the civil service board of that city.

The city of Oakland is governed by a freeholders’ charter, which took effect July 1, 1911. That charter introduced into the government of the city for the first time a civil service system. Pour years after the city had been operating under that system a new mayor and two new commissioners were elected, and they constituted a majority of the city council. The appellant was one of the new commissioners, and he was assigned to the department of public health and safety as commissioner thereof.

On the first day of its term the new administration introduced into the city council an ordinance, numbered 885 N. S., which repealed ordinance No. 350. The new ordinance abolished many of the old places of employment in the department of public health, and created, or attempted to create, new ones, the final result being a reduction in the number of employees of this department from thirty-four to thirty-three, and a saving in expense to the city of six hundred dollars per annum. The new ordinance was finally passed and took effect July 20, 1915.

Sections 5 and 6 of this ordinance provided as follows:

“Section 5. There are hereby created two positions of Deputy Sanitary and Plumbing Inspectors, and the salary of each thereof is hereby fixed at not less than one thousand five hundred ($1,500) dollars and not more than one thousand six hundred and twenty ($1,620) dollars per year payable in equal monthly installments.

“Section 6. There are hereby created two positions of Deputy Sanitary and Plumbing Inspectors, and the salary

[167]

of each thereof is hereby fixed at twelve hundred ($1200) dollars per year, payable in equal monthly installments.”

It will be noted that the four places of employment provided for in these two sections bear identically the same pames, but the salaries are materially different.

Barry v. Jackson

AI Brief

Synopsis

KERRIGAN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief