City of Mobile v. Personnel Bd. for Mobile County
| Decision Date | 31 March 1976 |
| Citation | 329 So.2d 570,57 Ala.App. 516 |
| Parties | CITY OF MOBILE, a Municipal Corporation v. PERSONNEL BOARD FOR MOBILE COUNTY, Alabama. Civ. 669. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
Stephen R. Sheppard, Mobile, for appellant.
Mylan R. Engel, Mobile, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Mobile County upholding a ruling of the Personnel Board for Mobile County, Alabama, appellee here.
A classified employee, serving as a bus driver for the City of Mobile Transportation Department, was dismissed by the City of Mobile, appellant here, on June 7, 1974. The employee appealed to the Personnel Board, and a hearing was held on August 26, 1974. Such hearings on appeal are de novo, and the Board may rescind, modify, alter or affirm the penalty imposed by the City, Rule 14.7 of the Personnel Board of Mobile County; Jordan v. City of Mobile, 260 Ala. 393, 71 So.2d 513. On September 5, 1974 the Personnel Board ordered the dismissal be modified to a suspension, with reinstatement of the employee as of September 16.
The City appealed the Personnel Board's decision to the Circuit Court of Mobile County. The case was submitted on the pleadings, briefs, and record developed before the Personnel Board. On April 18, 1975 the circuit court ruled, upholding the Personnel Board. This appeal is from the circuit court's ruling.
It has already been stated that the hearing on appeal to the Personnel Board shall be de novo. It is thus abundantly clear that the Board is the trier of fact in these proceedings, Grant v. City of Mobile, 50 Ala.App. 684, 282 So.2d 285, cert. den. 291 Ala. 458, 282 So.2d 291. The question for the circuit court to decide on review is whether or not the Personnel Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence, Grant v. City of Mobile, supra.
The record shows the following:
The employee was discharged for allegedly accepting fares from bus passengers and failing to deposit them in the fare box; and for smoking cigarettes while operating a city bus. Both acts are in violation of applicable regulations.
On June 3, 1974 at 3:20 p.m., Henry Owens and Etricia Mills, employees of McCullough Services, Inc., which was under contract with the City to audit its bus drivers, boarded the employee's bus at Dauphin and Water streets. Mills got on first and went to her seat about midway in the bus. Owens boarded behind her and started to put sixty cents in the fare box. According to Owens and Mills, the employee put his hand over the fare box, palm up, and took the sixty cents. They both stated that they did not see him put the money in the fare box. They also stated that during the time they were on the bus, they observed the employee smoking cigarettes.
Both these witnesses stated they also saw three young women board the bus at the same stop. They stated that the employee took the fare money from the women and that they did not see him put any money in the fare box. Both witnesses departed the bus at 3:31 p.m. that same day.
Witness Mills testified that she rode the employee's bus on June 4, 1974, boarding the bus at Dauphin and Water streets, and on this occasion she saw a passenger board the bus and give the employee some money. No Money was placed in the fare box. She said she also observed the employee smoking while operating the bus.
On cross-examination Mills said that on June 3, 1974 she saw Owens give the employee some money but did not see what he did with the money. She also said that she did not know how much money Owens gave the employee, but said in her report that it was sixty cents because that was the exact amount of fare due.
She further stated that she did not see how much money the three women gave the employee when they boarded the bus.
She made the statement that on June 3, 1974 she observed other passengers get on the bus and place their money in the fare box.
The superintendent of transportation for the City and the supervisor of the transportation department of the City of Mobile stated that all rules, regulations and directives for the behavior of bus drivers is contained in a packet that hangs on the bulletin board at the department's office and is abailable for all drivers to read.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Ex parte Pankey
-
City of Mobile v. Seals
...service employee appealing his or her termination. Averyt v. Doyle, 456 So.2d 1096 (Ala.Civ.App.1984); City of Mobile v. Personnel Board, 57 Ala.App. 516, 329 So.2d 570 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). Accord, Guthrie v. Civil Service Board, 342 So.2d 372 (Ala.Civ.App.1977); Edmondson v. Tuscaloosa Coun......
-
Barnett v. Allison
...before the Board and we look only to see if its findings are supported by substantial evidence. See City of Mobile v. Personnel Board for Mobile County, 57 Ala.App. 516, 329 So.2d 570 (1976); Edmondson v. Tuscaloosa County, 48 Ala.App. 372, 377, 265 So.2d 154 "Furthermore, after a careful r......
-
Board of Water and Sewer Com'rs of City of Mobile v. Smith
...the penalty imposed by the City, [see] Rule 14.7 of the Personnel Board of Mobile County"; City of Mobile v. Personnel Board for Mobile County, 57 Ala.App. 516, 517, 329 So.2d 570 (Ala.Civ.App.1976). This is much broader than the authority of the State Personnel Board, which, upon review an......