Baird v. City of Los Angeles
| Decision Date | 19 September 1975 |
| Citation | 51 Cal.App.3d 515,124 Cal.Rptr. 609 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | David BAIRD et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents. Civ. 45350. |
For Opinion on Remond, see 126 Cal.Rptr. 295. Dryden, Harrington & Swartz, George J. Franscell, and Peter Abrahams, Los Angeles, for petitioners and appellants.
Burt Pines, City Atty., John B. Rice, Asst. City Atty., and Barbara E. Miller, Deputy City Atty., for respondents.
COLE, * Associate Justice (Assigned).
We here hold that a Los Angeles police officer designated as a 'Policeman III' 1 holds a 'position' within the meaning of the Los Angeles City Charter and may not be deprived of its emoluments except in the manner set forth in that Charter. Section 202, subdivision (1) of the Los Angeles City Charter states that 'The right of an officer or employee of the Police Department to hold his office or position and to the compensation attached to such office or position is hereby declared to be a substantial property right of which he shall not be deprived arbitarily or summarily, nor otherwise than as herein in this section provided.'
The police department held hearings which resulted in the redesignation of each of the appellants as a Policeman II. For this purpose an 'Evaluation Review Board' was convened. The procedure in this connection conformed to the requirements of a section of the Los Angeles City Administrative Code 2 (§ 4.140, subd. (n)) but did not give to appellants the various rights guaranteed by Charter section 202, including a hearing with notice of charges, the right to assistance of counsel and many other procedural protections.
The controversy in this case centers around the contention of appellants that Police Officer III is a position within the meaning of the Charter and the contention of the city and its chief of police (respondents) that Police Officer III is merely a pay grade within a general class of policeman. Our review of the respective provisions convinces us that Policeman III is a position within the meaning of the Charter and that accordingly the trial court erred in denying to appellants a writ of mandate and other relief.
There is no dispute that if the Charter provisions conflict with the ordinances reflected in the Administrative Code of if the procedures actually followed did not comply with the Charter and the latter is applicable, then the Charter must prevail. (Currieri v. City of Roseville (1970) 4 Cal.App.3d 997, 1001, 84 Cal.Rptr. 651.)
Other Charter and Administrative Code sections are of importance in resolving the dispute. Charter section 100 requires the Board of Civil Service Commissioners to establish 'classes' for all employees (so far as is relevant here). The Charter section requires that each class include all positions, which are similar in specified particulars. Thus it is clear that the Charter intends a class to embrace more than one position, if the criteria of similarity are met.
The conflict with the Charter provisions arises out of the Jacobs Plan. 'The Jacobs plan was the outgrowth of a contract entered into by the city and The Jacobs Company, Inc., by which the latter developed a job evaluation and pay plan and conducted a classification review covering the sworn [police and fire] personnel employed by the city.' Melendres v. City of Los Angeles (1974), 40 Cal.App.3d 718, 724, 115 Cal.Rptr. 409, 413.)
Effective January 1, 1971, the Los Angeles City Council enacted an ordinance amending various sections of the Administrative Code in order to implement the Jacobs plan. Section (7) of the ordinance (hereafter 'the Jacobs plan ordinance') amended section 4.158 to read in pertinent part as follows:
(a) The following classes of positions and pay grades thereof are hereby created in the Fire and Police Departments, and the code numbers, titles and schedules as grades thereof. The schedules refer to the ranges of salaries set forth in Table I of this Article. Each member of the Fire and Police Departments shall be entitled to receive for his services in his position the rate of compensation prescribed for the class in which his position is allocated and the pay grade to which he is assigned.
(b) POLICE DEPARTMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Code Reference Class Title and Pay Grade Salary
Schedule
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2212 Policeman I 1
2212 2211/3502 Policeman II 2
2212 Policeman III 3
2216 Policewoman I 1
2216 2215/6401 Policewoman II 2
2216 Policewoman III 3
2222 Police Investigator I 5
2222 2221/3503"M Police Investigator II 6
2223 Police Investigator III 8
2224 Policewoman Investigator I 5
2224 2225/6401 1/2 Policewoman Investigator II 6
2226 2221/3503"M Police Sergeant I 6
2226 Police Sergeant II 7
2228 2225/6401 1/2 Policewoman Sergeant I 6
2228 2225/6401 1/2 Policewoman Sergeant II 7
2232 2231/3504"M Police Lieutenant I * 9
2232 2231/3504"M Police Lieutenant II* 10
2244 2241/3505 Police Captain I ** 12
2244 2241/3505 Police Captain II** 13
2244 Police Captain III 14
2251 3505 1/2 Police Commander *** 16
2262 2261/3509 Police Deputy Chief I 18
2262 2261/3509 Police Deputy Chief II 21
9359 Chief of Police 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These pay grades include the class of Detective Lieutenant, Code 3506;
** These pay grades include the class of Assistant Detective Captain, Code
3507;
*** This class includes the class of Inspector of Detectives, Code 3507 1/2.
(c) FIRE DEPARTMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class Code Reference Class Title and Pay Grade Salary Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
2112 Fireman I 2
2112 2111/3403 Fireman II 2
2121 3404 Auto Fireman 4
2131 3405 Engineer of Fire Department 5
2128 2127 Fire Inspector I 5
2128 Fire Inspector II 6
2142 2141/3407 Fire Captain I 8
2142 Fire Captain II 9
2152 2151/3408 Fire Battalion Chief 11
2166 2165/3409N Fire Assistant Chief 15
2176 2175/3409 1/2 Fire Deputy Chief 18
5125 8524 Fireboat Mate 5
5127 8525 Fireboat Pilot 7
9339 Chief Engineer Fire Department 25
The salary schedules referred to in this section were likewise contained in the Jacobs plan ordinance. Each schedule has within it a range of from three to five salary steps.
The parties' argument is focused on the intent of the council in enacting the Jacobs plan ordinance. That is a proper approach to determine the meaning of a statute or ordinance, but it leads to ambivalent results here. Even if it could be conclusively established that the council intended the appellation Policeman III be considered to be only a 'pay grade' and not a 'position', the supremacy of the Charter could not be avoided by the mere labels which the council attached to various positions. If Policeman III meets the attributes of a position as defined in the Charter, the holder of that position is entitled to the protection of Charter section 202 no matter how the council attempted to describe it. (Const., Art. XI, § 5, subd. (a).)
'Respondents read the city's code as being compatible with its charter. If it is not, then the former is void. 'The proposition is self-evident . . . that an ordinance must conform to, be subordinate to, not conflict with, and not exceed the [city's] charter, and can no more change or limit the effect of the charter than a legislative act can modify or supersede a provision of the constitution of the state.' (5 McQuillin Mun.Corp. (3d ed. 1969 rev.) § 15.19, pp. 79-80, § 15.15, p. 74; 1 Antieau, Municipal Corporation Law, § 3.09, pp. 122, 123 § 5.39, p. 292.28; Marculescu v. City Planning Com. (1935) 7 Cal.App.2d 371, 373-374 46 P.2d 308, hear. den.) . . .
...
To continue reading
Request your trial