Eashman v. City & County of San Francisco

PAULSEN, J. pro tem.* On January 20, 1948, Willie Eashman, respondent-petitioner, entered the employ of the San Francisco Municipal Railway and later was given the civil service classification “J66 Garageman—Permanent.” That employment continued until April 5, 1957. Shortly after that date petitioner was served with a notice of hearing which stated: “You are charged with inattention to duties in that you were working on your own personal automobile during regular working hours.” Following a hearing before the Manager of Utilities that officer filed an order of dismissal of the accused. This was affirmed by the Civil Service Commission.

Willie Eashman will be referred to here as “Petitioner,” the Civil Service Commission and its officers, collectively, as the “Board,” and the Manager of Utilities as the “Manager.”

After the order of dismissal was affirmed by the board, petitioner instituted this proceeding wherein he sought an alternative writ of mandate compelling the board to restore to him his employment and classification or show cause why it should not be compelled to do so. He admitted that during working hours he “had taken ten or fifteen minutes to change two spark plugs in his own car.” He alleged that he was entitled to relief on the ground that the manager and commission had been arbitrary, capricious and unfair. No other questions were raised for the consideration of the trial court.

[784]The matter was submitted to the court on the transcript of the hearing and among the court findings were these:

“2. That on April 4, 1957, petitioner was assigned to work in one of the Municipal car barns from midnight to the following 8 A. M.; that petitioner had performed all duties assigned to him up to 4 A.M.; that between 4 and 4:30 A. M. there is a slack period in the ear barn activities; that during said period petitioner took ten minutes to change two spark plugs in his private automobile; that the mechanic on duty at that time in the ear barn supplied petitioner with the tools necessary to change the two spark plugs.

“3. That at the time petitioner completed changing the aforesaid two spark plugs an employee at the ear barn claimed to have seen some gasoline which previously had been spilled on the ground near the buses; that efforts were made to connect petitioner with said spilled gasoline but all such efforts completely failed; that at no time was any charge made against petitioner accusing him of stealing said spilled gasoline nor was any evidence ever adduced implicating petitioner in the spilling of gasoline on the ground at said car barn.