City of St. Petersburg v. Pfeiffer, 21781
| Citation | 52 So.2d 796 |
| Decision Date | 22 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 21781,21781 |
| Parties | CITY OF ST. PETERSBURG et al. v. PFEIFFER. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Lewis T. Wray, Harry I. Young, Frank D. McDevitt and Adrian S. Bacon, all of St. Petersburg, for appellants.
Goldner & Cramer, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Frank E. Pfeiffer was suspended as a fireman of the City of St. Petersburg for a period of 90 days for conduct unbecoming to an employee. The charge was:
The civil service commission of the city was created by virtue of Chapter 18890, Special Acts 1937.
Pfeiffer immediately procured an alternative writ of mandamus to review the order and on final hearing was awarded a peremptory writ restoring him from which an appeal has been taken.
We find no error in the ruling entered by the circuit court. The charge was insufficient to predicate jurisdiction for suspension or removal. It was an expression of Pfeiffer's low opinion of his chief's talents. We approach danger when we allow an employee to be disciplined for criticizing or voicing a want of regard for his superior's abilities. The advent of civil service has cast a different aspect on the relation of employer and employee. Under civil service the employer may no longer summarily discharge an employee. An employee may express himself freely so long as he does not impair the administration of the service in which he is engaged. It is impossible to declare a rigid rule to fit all cases. Every employee owes allegiance to his employer and is duty bound to fulfill his job to the best of his ability. However, when his conduct becomes such as to materially harm the public interest in which he is engaged he forfeits the benefits of the civil service law. Civil Service Law by Field, page 181.
Civil service cannot be expected to compel personal admiration of one's superior. Personal loyalty and esteem is most generally a matter of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gioglio, In re
...speak freely so long as he does not impair the administration of the public service in which he is employed. City of St. Petersburg v. Pfeiffer, 52 So.2d 796 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1951); Belshaw v. City of Berkeley, supra; Cf. Hildebrandt v. Bailey, 65 N.J.Super. 274, 167 A.2d 655 The newspaper accou......
-
Klein v. Civil Service Commission of Cedar Rapids
...public employees. Belshaw v. City of Berkeley, Court of Appeal, 1966, 54 Cal.Rptr. 727, 730, 731 and citations; City of St. Petersburg et al. v. Pfeiffer, Fla., 52 So.2d 796. VI. We conclude the news release of August 5, 1964 by plaintiffs represented nothing more than an exercise of their ......
-
Dendor v. Board of Fire and Police Com'rs of Village of Northbrook, 55973
...speak freely, as long as he does not impair the administration of the public service in which he is engaged. City of St. Petersburg et al. v. Pfeiffer (Fla.1951), 52 So.2d 796. Of course, a governmental unit like the Village of Northbrook can regulate the speech of its employees either by a......
-
Hildebrandt v. Bailey
...it is not. Kane v. Walsh, supra; State ex rel. Curtis v. Steinkellner, 247 Wis. 1, 18 N.W.2d 355 (Sup.Ct.1945); City of St. Petersburg v. Pfeiffer, 52 So.2d 796 (Fla.Sup.Ct.1951). True, the language of the section is very broad, and it is possible that Bloomfield may in the future attempt t......