Bradford v. City of Shreveport

• Decision Date: 27 June 1972
• Docket Number: No. 11900,11900
• Citation: 266 So.2d 254
• Parties: W. C. BRADFORD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US

Page 254

266 So.2d 254

W. C. BRADFORD et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF SHREVEPORT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 11900.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.

June 27, 1972.

En Banc. Rehearing Denied Sept. 12, 1972.

Writ Refused Nov. 16, 1972.

Pugh & Nelson, Shreveport, for appellant.

Hargrove, Guyton, Van Hook & Ramey, Shreveport, for appellee.

Before BOLIN, PRICE and HEARD, JJ.

BOLIN, Judge.

Plaintiffs, alleging they were employed as policemen in the Department of Public Safety for the City of Shreveport, sued the city for overtime pay allegedly due them under the provisions of Louisiana R.S. 33:2213. Defendant filed an exception of no cause of action which was sustained, and plaintiffs appeal. We reverse the judgment of the lower court.

Defendant asserts in the exception the city was created under a plan of government adopted pursuant to Article 14, Section 37, Louisiana Constitution of 1921. The basis for the exception is enunciated in Articles 3 and 4 thereof, as follows:

3.

'Under the aforesaid Constitutional mandate, the internal affairs of the City of Shreveport, including, without limitation, the obligation to establish a police department and the authority to determine its organization and structure, including the hours of work of and payment of overtime to its policemen, is vested exclusively in the people of the City of Shreveport.

4.

'The Legislature of Louisiana is not vested with power or authority to alter, change or interfere with the aforesaid power and authority granted ot the City of Shreveport by the Constitution of this State and, consequently, Section 4 of Act No. 101 of 1948 (Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:2213) is not applicable and cannot be constitutionally applied insofar as it purports to affect the City of Shreveport.'

Article 14, Section 37, of the Louisiana Constitution provides:

'The people of the City of Shreveport shall have power to establish in the manner hereinafter provided, government for the said City.

(Sub-section (1) details the method by which a city charter may be created and adopted.)

(2) The plan of government shall be subject to amendment by election of the people as provided therein.'

La.R.S. 33:2213, upon which plaintiffs base their cause of action, provides:

'The maximum hours of work required of any full-time paid patrolman, patrolman first class, sergeant, lieutenant, or captain, or any other employee of the police department, except those employed in a position, grade, or class above that of captan, in any municipality affected by this Sub-part, shall be forty-eight hours in any one calendar week, and eight hours in any one day. In cases of emergency, any employee may be required to work in excess of the maximum. For each hour so worked the employee shall be paid at the rate of one and one-half times his usual salary, to be determined by reducing his monthly salary to an hourly scale.'

The above statute is not a special law but has general applicability as reflected by the first paragraph of R.S. 33:2212:

'A. Except as otherwise provided by law, the governing body of each municipality having a population of not less than twelve thousand nor more than two hundred fifty thousand shall pay each employee of its police department a salary of not less than the minimum rate of pay established in accordance with the grades, ranks or classes of positions as provided in this Section.'

The City of Shreveport, having a population of between 12,000 and 250,000, is therefore subject to the minimum salary statute for its policemen, unless the cited constitutional provision authorizing the creation of the city government renders the statute inapplicable.

The decision of the lower court was based principally upon La Fleur v. City of Baton Rouge, 124 So.2d 374 (La.App.1st Cir. 1960), and Letellier v. Jefferson Parish, 254 La. 1067, 229 So.2d 101 (1969). Counsel for appellee, in a well written and comprehensive brief before this court, also contend these cases are controlling.

While the cited cases are similar, in that each arose in a city operating under a constitutional home rule charter, we find they are distinguishable from this case. In La Fleur the constitutional amendment authorizing the creation of the city government of Baton Rouge provides:

'The people of East Baton Rouge Parish shall have power to establish, in the manner hereinafter provided, government for the Parish and the several municipal corporations and other political subdivisions and districts situated therein.

'(2) Plan of government. Subject to the constitutional and laws of this state with respect to the powers and functions of local government, as distinguished from structure, organization and particular distribution and redistribution of such powers and functions among the several units of local government within the Parish, such plan of government may provide, among other things: . . ..' (Article 14, § 3(a))

In La Fleur several members of the Baton Rouge Fire Department sought a declaratory judgment to ascertain whether the City of Baton Rouge was affected by a state statute providing minimum salaries for firemen in municipalities having a population in excess of $13,000. The court held that under the constitutional provision creating the City of Baton Rouge a general act of the Louisiana Legislature fixing the salaries of firemen was inapplicable to Baton Rouge. However, we think the following quotation from the case discloses the primary basis for the decision:

'A municipality, where created by legislative mandate in accordance with the Constitution, is granted powers and authority which are subject to change by the Legislature but where the creation of the municipality has its origin in the Constitution itself, then the Legislature is not vested with authority to alter, change or...