Anderson v. City of Long Beach
| Decision Date | 06 July 1959 |
| Citation | 341 P.2d 43,171 Cal.App.2d 699 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Merle W. ANDERSON et al., Petitioners and Respondents, v. CITY OF LONG BEACH, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Civ. 23317. |
Walhfred Jacobson, City Atty., Clifford E. Hayes, Deputy City Atty., Long Beach, for appellants.
Kenneth Sperry, Long Beach, for respondents.
The City of Long Beach appeals from the judgment which granted a peremptory writ of mandate requiring it 'to adjust the pension account of each petitioner herein so as to include therein credit for the entire amount of pension payments to which each is and was legally entitled, based upon the applicable percentage of the entire amount of compensation that was actually provided for and paid to active members of equal rank throughout the period from October 1, 1954 to October 1, 1956, including the additional sum of $180.00 per annum, which was actually paid to each active member of the Police and Fire Department of the City of Long Beach pursuant to Ordinance No. C-3420 and the administrative regulations issued in connection therewith' and to pay to each petitioner the additional amount due him together with interest thereon at 7% per annum.
Prior to October 1, 1954, each of the petitioners had retired from the Police or Fire Department of the City (or was a widow or other dependent of a deceased policeman or fireman) and had been granted and paid a pension pursuant to the provisions of Section 187 of the City Charter, in monthly payments equal to the applicable percentage of the current salary provided for the position upon which such pension is based. Prior to October 1, 1954, each policeman or fireman had furnished his own uniforms as required by the City, receiving no reimbursement whatever for the amounts spent by them therefor.
Ordinance No. C-3420 became effective on October 1, 1954 and was repealed effective October 1, 1956. Section 3 thereof is as follows:
'The City of Long Beach shall reimburse said employees of the Police and Fire Departments for furnishing and maintaining such uniforms and accessories thereto in an amount to be determined by the City Manager, providing, however, that the total payment to each employee shall not exceed One Hundred Eighty Dollars ($180.00) per year.'
It was stipulated by the parties hereto that 'no changes were made in the type of uniform or the regulations with respect to the wearing of such uniforms in the calendar years 1954, 1955, or 1956, and that no affidavit or showing of any kind was required to be made by the various members of the Police and Fire Departments with respect to the use of such funds as they were paid by the City of Long Beach pursuant to the provisions of said ordinance No. C-3420 or with respect to the actual costs of any clothing or uniforms which were worn by them throughout the period from October 1, 1954 to October 1, 1956.'
It was further stipulated that quarterly payments were made by the City to the active members of the Police and Fire Department in accordance with an administrative regulation to the effect that the Police and Fire Departments shall furnish the accounting department with time sheets showing the number of 'on duty days' worked by their members, who shall be paid a uniform allowance based upon a schedule specifying the amounts due for 'on duty days' ranging from 52 cents for one to $47.72 for 92 'on duty days' in any quarter, but not to exceed $180 in any year.
Respondents urged in the court below, and it was there determined, that the uniform allowance was in fact an increase in the 'salary attached to the rank or position' held by respondents prior to their retirement.
The fact that the so-called 'uniform allowance' is not provided in the salary ordinance, but a separate one, that none of the respondents had 'on duty days' or was required to maintain uniforms and accessories during the time within which said Ordinance No. C-3420 was in effect are claimed by appellant to require reversal of the judgment for the reason that it 'is contrary to the law and the facts'. This contention is based upon cas...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Banish v. City of Hamtramck
...the payment is a payment for services rendered or to be rendered. We have considered, but decline to follow Anderson v. City of Long Beach (1959), 171 Cal.App.2d 699, 341 P.2d 43, 46, where the court held that since the effect of providing a uniform allowance to active service employees was......
-
W. Va. Consol. Pub. Ret. Bd. v. Clark
...asked and no strings attached insofar as an employee was otherwise receiving his or her salary. See Anderson v. City of Long Beach , 171 Cal.App.2d 699, 341 P.2d 43, 46 (1959) (finding relevant "how the ‘uniform allowance’ was computed and paid, or ‘treated’ " for purposes of determining wh......
-
Hilligoss v. LaDow
...only reported cases disclosed by our research which deal with clothing allowances and pension benefits. In Anderson v. City of Long Beach (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 699, 341 P.2d 43, the clothing allowance was authorized by a city ordinance which provided for payments to be made on the basis of ......
-
Blum v. City and County of San Francisco
...Supreme Court decided Abbott v. City of Los Angeles (1958) 50 Cal.2d 438, 466-468, 326 P.2d 484. (See also Anderson v. City of Long Beach (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 699, 702, 341 P.2d 43.) Thus, the question is--is the City and County of San Francisco a political subdivision of the The City and ......