Civil Service Ass'n v. City & County of San Francisco

Opinion

ELKINGTON, J. The San Francisco Unified School District had a class of employees, other than teachers, whose work assignments did not cover the summer, Christmas, and Easter school vacation periods. During those periods such employees were in a “nonpay status,” but they were not separated from the school service, nor were they rehired as new employees when school resumed. They were “never terminated in their employment,” and were in “continuous service” throughout the year.

Such employees are described by the parties, and will sometimes be described by us, as “school term” employees.

[543]The city’s charter, section 8.440, subdivision (a), as relevant, provides:

“(a) Every person employed in the city and county service shall be allowed a vacation with pay annually, as long as he continues in his employment, as follows:

“(1) After one year’s continuous service, ten working days.

“(2) After five years’ continuous service, fifteen working days.

“(3) After fifteen years’ continuous service, twenty working days.” (Italics added.)

The city acting under certain administrative code provisions (discussed below) did not allow its school term employees the full paid vacations as provided by charter section 8.440, subdivision (a). Rather, it gave them “a pro-rata vacation allowance of eight (8) working days [instead of 10] after one year’s continuous service; twelve (12) working days [instead of 15] after five (5) years continuous service; and seventeen (17) working days [instead of 20] after fifteen (15) years continuous service ....”

At issue in the superior court was whether the school term employees were entitled to the full vacation periods provided by charter section 8.440, subdivision (a). The court concluded that they were, and judgment was entered accordingly. The several defendants (to whom we refer collectively as the city) have appealed from the judgment.

Our task is the construction of the city’s pertinent charter and ordinance provisions. We are, of course, not bound by the expressed interpretations of the superior court; we must make our own determination. (Hall v. City of Taft, 47 Cal.2d 177, 188 [302 P.2d 574].)