Dunn v. Civil Service Commission

California Court of Appeal Jan 14, 1935 No. Civ. No. 9460Published

Before: Nourse

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a civil service employee assigned to perform the duties of a higher-ranking position is not entitled to the salary of that higher position, as compensation must be based on the employee's official civil service classification.

Issues

Whether a civil service employee assigned to perform the duties of a higher position is entitled to the salary of that position.
Whether the salary of a temporary appointee is governed by the employee's official classification or the duties performed.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The explicit provisions of the section against one holding a position “outside of the classification to which he has been appointed” necessarily prohibit the payment of compensation outside the rating of the classification”

NOURSE, P. J. Plaintiff was appointed to the position of assistant keeper in the office of the sheriff, a civil service position, in August, 1928. On October 16, 1932, the position of head keeper became vacant and plaintiff was “appointed and assigned” by the sheriff to fulfill the duties of this posi[555]tion until a permanent appointment could be made from the civil service list. As assistant keeper plaintiff received a salary of $160 per month; the head keeper received $200. When plaintiff was assigned to the latter position he was given the salary of $175, which was the entrance salary set by the salary standardization ordinance which was adopted in 1930 by the Civil Service Commission, but was never approved by the board of supervisors. However, the Civil Service Commission based the salary on the annual salary ordinance which provides that persons appointed to fill vacancies should receive'the amount provided for in the standardization ordinance. Thereupon plaintiff commenced this action in declaratory relief and for a writ of mandate. Plaintiff had judgment declaring that he was entitled to a salary of $200 per month so long as he continued to perform the duties of head keeper. The defendants appeal on the ground that the judgment is against the law.

Section 71 of the charter provides that pending the adoption of salary standards as provided in the charter the salary rate shall be recommended by the officer “having appointing power for such position and fixed by the budget and annual salary ordinance”. Section 73 of the charter gives the board of supervisors the power to enact the annual salary ordinance and states that this ordinance shall serve as a legal basis for cheek by the Civil Service Commission as to the legality of rates of compensation. The annual salary ordinance for 1932-33 provides that persons appointed to fill vacancies shall receive no more than the entrance salary proposed in the salary standardization ordinance of 1930.

It is conceded that the position of head keeper is a civil service position, and also that when respondent was appointed or assigned to perform the duties of that office, no civil service list of eligibles was available. The respondent alleged and the trial court found that the sheriff “appointed and assigned the plaintiff to perform the duties of head keeper . . . that . . . the Civil Service Commission gave their consent and approval” to such appointment and assignment.

When no civil service list of eligibles is available there are but two methods by which a temporary appointment or assignment can be made to fill a civil service position. Sec

Dunn v. Civil Service Commission

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief