Spaletta v. Kelly

California Court of Appeal Feb 3, 1939 No. Civ. No. 6014Published

Before: Tpiompson

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the attempted transfer of a civil service employee to a different part of the state was void because it was not authorized by the State Personnel Board as required by its rules, and the executive officer lacked the authority to delegate such power to a subordinate. Consequently, the employee was entitled to reinstatement and back pay.

Issues

Whether a state highway employee may be transferred to another part of the state without the consent of the State Personnel Board.
Whether the principal personnel technician has the authority to order the transfer of a civil service employee.
Whether the executive officer of the State Personnel Board may delegate the power to transfer employees to a subordinate.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The effort to transfer the petitioner from Laytonville to Bridgeville was, therefore, ineffectual and void.”

“Certainly the executive officer had no authority to delegate the important duties of his office to another individual. There is no authority of law for such delegation of power.”

TPIOMPSON, J. —The respondents have appealed from a judgment rendered by the Superior Court of Mendocino County on a petition for a writ of mandamus, compelling the reinstatement of John C. Spaletta as highway maintenance foreman at Laytonville in district No. 1 of the state of California, which comprises a portion of the Redwood state highway, and directing the payment of his salary during the period of time he was excluded from his position.

The petition alleges that Spaletta has been employed as such highway maintenance foreman in said district No. 1 at a salary of $180 a month and has attained civil service status pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Service Act of California (Stats. 1913, p. 1035, and amendments, Deering's Gen. Laws of Calif, of 1931, p. 621, act 1400); that ever since said time he has efficiently performed the duties of his office without criticism; that no charges of unfitness or insubordination have ever been presented against him; that he has never been discharged nor has he resigned, but at all times has been and still is entitled to retain said position; that for administrative purposes the state of California is divided into highway districts designated by numbers, each of which districts is maintained under the supervision of a district engineer who is in charge of the work and of the highway staff; that Mendocino County is located in highway district No. 1, which includes the territory extending along the Redwood highway for a distance of eighty-eight miles and which is subdivided into four different sections, one of which sections is located at Laytonville over which the petitioner had supervision; that another section of the district is located at Bridgeville, near Eureka; that without authority of the state personnel board the petitioner was directed to leave his employment at Laytonville and report for similar service at Bridgeville. Pursuant to that order the following written communication was given to the petitioner, October 24, 1936:

“Under the authority of Section 3, Rule 18, of the Rules and Regulations of the State Personnel Board, approval is hereby [659]granted to the transfer of John C. Spaletta, Highway Maintenance Foreman, from Laytonville to Bridgeville.

“Very truly yours “William Brownrigg “Executive Officer “By Louis J. Kroeger ‘ ‘ Principal Personnel “Technician”

It is also alleged that because his transfer from Laytonville to Bridgeville was not duly authorized by the state personnel board, the petitioner failed and refused to report for didy in the last-mentioned section, and continued to report for work at Laytonville, holding himself in readiness at all times to perform his service, but was refused permission to continue the work; that after the lapse of ten days from his notice of transfer the petitioner was notified of the termination of his services on the theory that for failure to report for work at Bridgeville for a period of ten days under the provisions of rule 15, section 2, he was deemed to have resigned, and that thereafter the payment of his salary was refused. The petition for a writ of mandamus was filed in Mendocino County, December 31, 1936, demanding the reinstatement of petitioner as highway maintenance foreman and the payment of his salary from August 9, 1936.

Spaletta v. Kelly

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief