Carrier v. Robbins
| Decision Date | 25 June 1952 |
| Citation | 112 Cal.App.2d 32,245 P.2d 676 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | CARRIER et al. v. ROBBINS et al. Civ. 4272. |
Walter Wencke, San Diego, for appellants.
James Don Keller, Dist. Atty. of San Diego County and Carroll H. Smith and Robert G. Berrey, Deputies Dist. Atty., San Diego, for respondents.
Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of dismissal after a general demurrer was sustained without leave to amend to their second amended complaint.
The complaint, as amended, is for declaratory relief on the construction and interpretation of section 40 of the charter of the county of San Diego, which provides as follows:
'In fixing compensation, the Board of Supervisors shall at least annually by ordinance, provide in each instance for payment of not less than the prevailing or general current rate of compensatin or wages paid by private employers in the County of San Diego for similar quality or quantity of service, in case such prevailing compensation or wages can be ascertained.'
Plaintiffs, who are employees of the county of San Diego, allege in the first count of the second amended complaint that the said charter imposes the duty upon the board of supervisors of ascertaining the prevailing rate of pay referred to therein; that in ascertaining the prevailing rate of pay, the supervisors must use only the yardstick of work of 'similar quality or quantity' and may not take into consideration such factors as the cost of living or various working conditions; that in the case of county employees who have duties of two or more crafts in private industry, the board of supervisors must look to the several crafts in private industry which have those functions which are performed by the particular class of county employees and weigh the average of the prevailing wages of the crafts in private industry according to the use made of these functions in the county employ; that in making provision for the payment of the rates ascertained, the supervisors may not make deductions for any conditions of employment which exist in county employ and which are not found in private industry; that by using the yardstick 'similar quality and quantity' of production rather than using the yardstick of 'comparability conditions of employment' or relying upon the cost of living index in ascertaining the prevailing rates of pay in private industry and by making no deductions for any county conditions of employment in payment of that rate, the actual prevailing rates of pay were as set forth in appendix B attached to the complaint; that by using the yardstick of 'comparability of conditions' of employment and relying upon the cost of living index rather than using solely the yardstick of the rate of production ('similar quality and quantity of service') in ascertaining the rate, or by making deductions for conditions of employment when providing for the payment of the rate theretofore ascertained, the board of supervisors in an ordinance set the rates of pay enumerated in appendix A incorporated in the complaint; that the defendants dispute: first, the 'criteria' to be employed in ascertaining the prevailing rate of pay in private industry for a particular category of county employee; and, second, the contention that in providing for the payment of the rate so ascertained, no deductions for county conditions of work may be made; and that a justiciable controversy exists between the defendants and plaintiffs.
In a second and third count it is alleged that the county ordinance adopted fixing the county salaries contained classifications and rates of pay not subject to the terms of the charter; that the board was under a continuing duty to re-examine and ascertain the prevailing rates after the adoption of the ordinance and until its effective date; that there was an increase in prevailing rates which the board did not take into consideration; that on December 26, 1950, the board of supervisors passed and adopted a salary ordinance granting to all employees of the county of San Diego a five per cent blanket increase in their salaries and wages effective February 1, 1951, for the balance of the fiscal year 1950-1951; that between June 10, 1950, and December 26, 1950, the salaries of plaintiff were by the use of the yardstick of a 'similar quality and quantity' as set forth in appendix B of the complaint; that the board maintains it has discretion to grant inter-annual increases without regard to section 40 of the charter and that this, therefore, constitutes a justiciable controversy.
The prayer of the complaint is that the court declare the meaning of section 4 of the charter as contended by plaintiffs.
It is apparent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
County of Sonoma v. Superior Court
... ... The fixing of the salaries of county employees is unquestionably a legislative function. ( Carrier v. Robbins (1952) 112 ... 173 Cal.App.4th 343 ... Cal.App.2d 32, 35 [245 P.2d 676]; see Alameda County Employees' Assn. v. County of Alameda ... ...
-
Walker v. County of Los Angeles
...San Francisco v. Boyd, 22 Cal.2d 685, 689, 692, 140 P.2d 666; Allen v. Bowron, 64 Cal.App.2d 311, 313, 148 P.2d 673; Carrier v. Robbins, 112 Cal.App.2d 32, 35, 245 P.2d 676; Banks v. Civil Service Commission, 10 Cal.2d 435, 442, 74 P.2d 741; Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co., 310 U.S. 113, 127, 6......
-
Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Luis Obispo
...Garamendi (1994) 8 Cal.4th 216, 278 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 807, 878 P.2d 566] [factfinding is a quasi-legislative function]; Carrier v. Robbins (1952) 112 Cal.App.2d 32, 35-36 [the courts will not interfere with the exercise of a factfinding function by the board of D. Remaining Arguments (23) Res......
-
Walker v. Munro
...Cal.App.2d 72] P.2d 691; Chapman v. Division of Real Estate, 1957, 153 Cal.App.2d 421, 430-432, 314 P.2d 773; Carrier v. Robbins, 1952, 112 Cal.App.2d 32, 36, 245 P.2d 676; Louis Eckert Brewing Co. v. Unemployment Reserves Comm., 1941, 47 Cal.App.2d 844, 847-848, 119 P.2d 227. Plaintiffs ci......