Ebbing v. City of Hamilton, CA84-10-126

• Citation: 29 Ohio App.3d 69,502 N.E.2d 661,29 OBR 79
• Decision Date: 30 September 1985
• Docket Number: No. CA84-10-126,CA84-10-126
• Parties: , 29 O.B.R. 79 EBBING et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF HAMILTON, Appellant. *
• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)

Page 69

29 Ohio App.3d 69

502 N.E.2d 661, 29 O.B.R. 79

EBBING et al., Appellees, v. CITY OF HAMILTON, Appellant. ^*

No. CA84-10-126.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County.

Sept. 30, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Where a collective bargaining agreement between a city and its police force results in some officers in the same class being required to work for an additional period of time without receiving compensation for the additional services, and where the city charter requires uniform compensation for like and similar services, the collective bargaining agreement is unenforceable in this respect and the officers working the longer period of time are entitled to additional compensation.

2. The fact that Section 5 of Am.Sub.S.B. No. 133 (the Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act, R.C. Chapter 4117) provides that "[a]ny written contract * * * in effect on April 1, 1983 or entered into between January 1, 1983 and March 31, 1984 * * * shall be deemed valid for its term * * * " does not validate a provision in a collective bargaining agreement between a city and its police force which provision contradicts the city's charter. To hold otherwise would defeat the Home Rule Amendment of the Ohio Constitution, Section 7, Article XVIII.

3. The basic philosophy behind civil service legislation is parity between members of a particular class or group so that none within the group is preferred as the result of standards applied on a discriminatory basis.

4. Because of the varying duties and responsibilities inevitably associated with different ranks of a police force, the entire force cannot be viewed as one class. Thus, where all members of one class or rank are receiving the same compensation for similar services rendered by that particular class or rank, there is no discrimination among the members of that class or rank.

Richard J. Wessel, Hamilton, for appellees.

Charles A. Turner, Asst. Law Director, Hamilton, for appellant.

JONES, Judge.

This appeal questions the validity of a "working policy agreement" entered into between a municipality and its police department's collective bargaining agent. The matter was submitted to the trial court on an agreed statement of facts which indicates the following:

Defendant-appellant, city of Hamilton, is a municipal corporation functioning under a charter form of government. The city's charter has been in full force and effect at all times pertinent to the matters herein. The plaintiffs-appellees are all members of the Hamilton Police Department, and all plaintiffs, except for those having attained the rank of lieutenant and above, were represented by Lodge No. 38 of the Fraternal Order of Police, which acted as the collective bargaining unit in the formulation of the working policy agreement in question.

From March 1, 1981 to February 29, 1984, the working policy agreement existed between the city and Lodge No. 38. Under the agreement, some of the plaintiffs worked a five-two shift (five work days followed by two off days) while some plaintiffs worked a four-two shift (four work days followed by two off days). When holidays, off days and uniform maintenance allowances were taken into consideration, those officers working a five-two shift worked several days more than the officers on the four-two shift. The five-two officers did not receive any additional compensation for the difference in days they were required to work.

On March 2, 1983, plaintiffs filed a complaint in the common pleas court, challenging the five-two work schedule. Plaintiffs alleged that the five-two schedule caused them to work more than the officers on the four-two plan and that such extra uncompensated work violated the Hamilton City Charter. Plaintiffs sought declaratory relief and compensation for the additional time they were required to work.

In an opinion dated September 17, 1984, the common pleas court held that the working policy agreement conflicted with the charter provision which required uniform compensation for like and similar services rendered by civil service employees. The court further found, among other things, that those officers with the rank of captain and detective had been discriminated against as a class. The court granted judgment to the plaintiffs for the amounts claimed due and owing to compensate them for the additional time they had worked. The city initiated the instant appeal as a result of the court's decision.

For its first assignment of error, the city claims that the trial court's finding that the working policy agreement violated the city charter provision requiring uniform compensation for like services was contrary to law. This assignment centers around the trial court's conclusion that the agreement between the city and its police force conflicted with Section 010.77, Article X of the Hamilton City Charter and was accordingly invalid. That section of the city's charter reads in pertinent part as follows:

"The Council shall by ordinance establish a schedule of compensation for officers and employees in the classified service which shall provide uniform compensation for like service. * * * " (Emphasis added.)

By virtue of its charter, the city has adopted that form of government which permits its exercise of all powers of local self-government. Section 7, Article XVIII, Ohio Constitution. This section of the Constitution, known as the "Home Rule Amendment," establishes that form of municipal government where " * * * [t]he charter is the city's organic law which governs the city's exercise of its home rule powers. * * * " Northern Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. North Olmsted (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 464, 465, 476 N.E.2d 689. It has been determined by the Ohio Supreme Court that "[t]he right of a municipality to determine the compensation of its employees is, without question, a power of local self-government. * * * " Teamsters Local Union No. 377 v. Youngstown (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 158, 160, 413 N.E.2d 837 . See, also, State, ex rel. Mullin, v. Mansfield (1971), 26 Ohio St.2d 129, 269 N.E.2d 602 , certiorari denied (1971), 404 U.S. 985, 92 S.Ct. 452, 30 L.Ed.2d 369.

The charter provision quoted above provides for the establishment of a compensation schedule which calls for uniform compensation for like or similar services rendered to the city by a particular group of public employees. Under the provisions of the working policy agreement, some police officers are required to work for a...