Bruce Adkins v. City of Portsmouth, Ohio
| Decision Date | 20 March 1986 |
| Docket Number | 1549,86-LW-0936 |
| Parties | Bruce ADKINS, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF PORTSMOUTH, Ohio et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Thompson Hine and Flory and William C. Moul, Columbus, Ohio, for appellants.
Richard T. Schisler, City Solicitor, Portsmouth, Ohio, for appellees.
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the Common Pleas Court of Scioto County, affirming a decision of the Portsmouth Civil Service Commission and the City of Portsmouth, appellees herein, denying the appellants' Bruce Adkins and thirty-five other Portsmouth firefighters', request for sick pay benefits.
The appellants, members of the classified civil service, assign the following errors:
The following facts, pertinent to this appeal, are disclosed in the record. During the period of July 22nd, 23rd and 24th 1981, members of the Portsmouth Fire Department were involved in a controversy with the Portsmouth City government. The exact nature of the controversy is not clear and is only alluded to in the record before us. It appears that during this three day period in July, 1981, thirty-eight members of the fire department, including the appellants herein, called in and reported off work due to illness. When replacements were called to substitute for the sick employees, they all refused to work. Consequently the fire chief, William Medley, was the only firefighter available to serve the city for the three day period. At 6:00 P.M. on July 24, 1981, all firefighters who were scheduled to work the evening shift reported to work.
The fire chief prepared the fire department payroll which included appellants' sick leave pay for the three days set forth above. The City Manager contacted Chief Medley and directed him to deduct pay from those firefighters claiming sick leave on July 22nd, July 23rd and July 24, 1981. This directive was apparently never reduced to writing as neither the appellants nor the civil service commission were ever furnished with a copy of such order. Nevertheless, the appellants filed appeals with the Portsmouth Municipal Civil Service Commission. A hearing before the commission was convened on August 25, 1981. At the hearing the appellants adduced evidence of the ordinances and policies governing sick leave. Fire Chief William Medley, the only witness to testify at the hearing, testified that each of the appellants had complied with the procedures being followed by calling the Central Station (or dispatcher) prior to 7:15 A.M. of the scheduled work day and stating the reason for requesting the leave. Chief Medley also testified that a written doctor's statement was not required until the employee was absent for three working days. Three of the original appellants produced written statements indicating that they were under a physician's care during the period in question. The appellee, City Manager, agreed to pay these firefighters; Bobby Joe Conley, Charles Tomlin and Howard Boatman and consequently their appeals were dismissed.
The appeals of the remaining thirty-five firefighters were summarily denied. No findings were made in the commission order and it is not discernable whether the appeals were dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. Appellants then appealed the decision of the commission to the Common Pleas Court of Scioto County, pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506. and R.C. 124.34.
The court below issued a decision on November 16, 1984, followed by entry of judgment on November 30, 1984, affirming the order of the Civil Service Commission dismissing the appeals. The court essentially concluded that the Portsmouth Civil Service Commission had jurisdiction based upon a prior decision of the Scioto County Common Pleas Court, i.e., Medley v. Civil Service Commission of City of Portsmouth (1970) 23 Ohio Misc. 311, that under Section 169.03 of the Codified Ordinances of the City of Portsmouth appellants did not "furnish satisfactory proof of illness" and were properly denied sick pay.
The court concluded that the decision of the commission was not "unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable or unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable and probative evidence."
In summary, appellants contend, inter alia, that the refusal of the City of Portsmouth to pay their sick leave which was requested in conformity with applicable ordinances and current city policy constituted either a reduction in pay or a suspension under R.C. 124.34. It is then argued that under R.C. 124.34, as judically interpreted, the undisputed failure to furnish a written order denying benefits to appellants and filing the same with the Commission specifically as required by the statute, entitled appellants to a reversal of the judgment as a matter of law. Appellee contends that the administrative denial of sick leave benefits is not appealable under R.C. 124.34 to the Commission.
No appeal to the Commission was authorized by R.C. Chapter 2506. The appeal therein authorized is directly to the Court of Common Pleas as set forth in R.C. 2506.01 which provides, inter alia, as follows:
However, for such an appeal to lie it is necessary that a decision sought to be appealed be entered in a quasi-judicial proceeding as opposed to being only a unilateral administrative decision or order. In order to be a quasi-judicial order, the order must be made under a statute or ordinance requiring notice, a hearing and the right to present evidence. M.J. Kelly Co. v Cleveland (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 150; Delong v Bd. of Education (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 62; The State Ex Rel. Dean v Huddle (1975), 45 Ohio App.2d 163. Inasmuch as there is no provision in the Portsmouth City Charter or ordinances requiring notice and hearing as to the administrative denial of requested sick leave benefits, no appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506. to the Common Pleas Court was available to appellants.
Decisions of a municipal civil service commission affecting a classified civil service employee, entered after hearing are appealable to the Common Pleas Court, under the limitations and grounds in R.C. 124.34 as well as under R.C. Chapter 2506. Walker v Eastlake (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 273; Beare v Eaton (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 142; In re Locke (1972), 33 Ohio App.2d 177. Even though a commission order is so appealable, the Common Pleas Court must determine if an appeal to the Commission was statutorily authorized and, if not, to so find and dismiss the appeal for such reason.
The dispositive issue thus presented is whether a municipal civil service commission is empowered to hear appeals by classified civil service employees who have been administratively denied sick leave benefits for a day on which they reported off sick. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we hold no such right of appeal is authorized.
Municipal service commissions, pursuant to R.C. 124.40, perform the same functions as does the Director of Administrative Services and the State Personnel Board of Review with respect to the civil service of a city. R.C. 124.40 provides, inter alia, that the "procedure applicable to reductions, suspensions, and removals, as provided for in section 124.34 of the Revised Code, shall govern the civil service of cities." R.C. 124.34 provides, as here pertinent, the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial