Fellows v. LaTronica
| Citation | 377 P.2d 547,151 Colo. 300 |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 20074,20074 |
| Parties | , 52 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2386, 46 Lab.Cas. P 50,710 George H. FELLOWS, City Manager of Pueblo, a Municipal Corporation, Pueblo, a Municipal Corporation, C. J. Burress, Georgia Farabaugh, Phil K. Hudspeth, Richard Liles, Fred H. Voss, Richard D. Robb, and James Watson, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Vito LaTRONICA, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Colorado |
Gordon D. Hinds, Pueblo, for plaintiffs in error.
Bellinger, Faricy & Tursi, Pueblo, for defendant in error.
We will refer to the parties as follows: Plaintiffs in error as Pueblo or the city, and defendant in error as plaintiff.
The complaint contains two claims, viz.:
(1) That the city is indebted to plaintiff for two weeks compensation for services as a city fireman, or alternatively for two weeks vacation; that the Civil Service Commission of Pueblo had directed the City Manager to grant plaintiff one or the other; and that although requested to do so the city had refused.
(2) That the 'defendant, Pueblo, a Municipal Corporation and Local No. 3, International Association of Fire Fighters were at all times involved in this dispute governed by a work agreement'; that in accordance with one of the provisions of said work agreement, plaintiff who is a member of said Local No. 3, requested an arbitration of his claim against Pueblo but the city refused to arbitrate the same. Plaintiff sought the entry of an order requiring the city to arbitrate the claim and to comply with the result thereof.
Pueblo filed its answer in which a number of defenses were set forth. We find it necessary to consider only the following:
(1) The complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
(2) The order of the Civil Service Commission was 'void, illegal and unconstitutional' and purported to order compensation to plaintiff in excess of that authorized by the ordinances of the city.
The case was submitted to the trial court upon stipulated facts. The work agreement between the union (Local No. 3 above mentioned) and Pueblo was made a part of plaintiff's complaint. It was entered into April 21, 1952. Article I thereof was captioned 'Recognition and Scope' and reads as follows:
'The City recognizes the Union as the exclusive bargaining representative, of, and this agreement shall apply to, all employees of the Pueblo Fire Department, with the exception of the Chief.'
Order sections of the contract provided that the covered 'employees' of the city should receive certain vacations with pay, additional vacation allowances 'in lieu of holidays worked, at the end of each completed year of service,' benefits from disabilities arising from accident or disease incurred while on duty, and other fringe benefits. Article XI of the contract is as follows:
'Any dispute concerning the terms of this agreement, or the working conditions hereunder, and which does not require a modification of this agreement, which can not be adjusted amicably shall be submitted to arbitration. * * *' (Emphasis supplied)
It is stipulated that on May 6, 1953, plaintiff requested a vacation leave for the year 1953, from June 23 to July 13, and that this request was approved; however he was injured on June 14, and was off duty by reason thereof until July 29. He received full compensation during this period of time. The administrative policy of the Pueblo Fire Department was that firemen took their vacations when they were scheduled to occur, without regard to matters that might intervene between the date of approval of vacation leave and the actual time the vacation was scheduled.
No good purpose would be served by detailing the efforts that were made by plaintiff to secure a settlement of his claim, or by setting forth the rather burdensome and lengthy exchanges of correspondence between him and the city. Suffice it to say that on June 2, 1959, the attorney for plaintiff demanded that the claim be submitted to arbitration under the terms of the contract above mentioned. This demand was refused by the city.
By letter dated December 7, 1959, plaintiff by his attorney took the matter to the Civil Service Commission of the city where on December 9, 1959, the matter was tabled. January 6, 1960, the Civil Service Commission was informed by the personnel director that it was the opinion of the city attorney that the commission had no jurisdiction in this matter, and on January 20, 1960, the personnel director on advice of the city attorney declined to further participate in discussions of the commission relating to plaintiff's claim. On or about February 10, 1960, in an action not recorded in their official minutes, the members of the Civil Service Commission in a letter addressed to George Fellows, City Manager, announced as their unanimous opinion that 'the question of Vito LaTronica be resolved in his favor; i. e., two weeks' pay or time off.' Said letter was read to the city council at its meeting of February 10, 1960, but no action was taken thereon by the council other than to receive and file the same.
From the rather lengthy stipulation of facts (much of which concerns matters immaterial to the controlling question) it is admitted that the contract with the union purported to make provision for a vacation with full pay, and for sick leave with full pay. It is admitted that plaintiff took sick leave and received his pay and that he took no vacation and received no pay for absence on vacation. It is admitted that he could not take vacation and sick leave at the same time and receive double pay therefor, even under the provisions contained in the contract. There is no provision of the Pueblo charter authorizing the making of collective bargaining agreements with labor unions representing employees of the city. Accordingly this opinion should not be construed as decisive of any issue arising under a contract with a labor union where specific charter provisions or statutory authority exist for such contract.
The trial court Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed: 'THAT defendants do immediately comply with Plaintiff's demand for arbitration of his claim in accordance with Article XI of the work agreement.'
The city seeks review by writ of error.
First. Does the city of Pueblo, under the facts disclosed by this record, have power to enter into a binding contract or 'working agreement' with a labor union representing members of the city fire department, by which the municipality becomes bound to pay the salaries, provide vacations with pay, sick leaves with pay, and other fringe benefits as provided therein?
This question is answered in the negative. An examination of pertinent provisions of the Home Rule Charter of Pueblo clearly indicates that it was the intention of the people of the city to insure that the compensation, working conditions, vacations, sick leaves, and other benefits connected with employment by the city, were matters exclusively within the legislative function of the city. The duly elected representatives of all the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees
... ... (International U. of Op. Eng., Loc. 321 v. Water Works Board, 276 Ala. 462, 163 So.2d 619, 620; Fellows v. La Tronica, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547, 550; Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Education, 138 Conn. 269, 83 A.2d 482; Miami Water Works Local ... ...
-
Maryland Classified Emp. Ass'n, Inc. v. Anderson
... ... 12 See e.g., City of Fort Smith v. Arkansas State Council No. 38, 245 Ark. 409, 433 S.W.2d 153 (1968); Fellows v. La Tronica, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547 (1962); Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Education, 138 Conn. 269, 83 A.2d 482, 486-487 (1951); Wesclin ... ...
-
Dearborn Fire Fighters Union, Local No. 412, I.A.F.F. v. City of Dearborn
... ... See, also, Fellows v. LaTronica, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547 (1962) (illegal delegation in absence of both statute and charter provision permitting it) ... 11 The ... ...
-
State Bd. of Regents v. United Packing House Food and Allied Workers, Local No. 1258
... ... See also: Nutter v. City of Santa Monica (1946) 74 Cal.App.2d 292, 168 P.2d 741, 747--748; Fellows v. LaTronica (1962) 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547, 550--551; Delaware River and Bay Auth. v. International Organization etc. (1965) 45 N.J. 138, 211 ... ...
-
Public Meeting Statutes and Public Sector Collective Bargaining
...Colorado Supreme Court reintroduced uncertainty into one of the few areas that was susceptible to prediction. In Fellows v. LaTronica, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547 (1962) the Colorado Supreme Court had held that the City of Pueblo had no power to enter into a binding contract through their l......
-
Collective Bargaining for Local Public Employees in Colorado
...C.R.S. (1977 Replacement Vol.), §§ 31-4-101 and 31-4-301. 21. See, Mugford v. Mayor of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745 (1946). 22. 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547 (1962). 23. Id. at 305, 377 P.2d at 550. 24. Id. at 307, 377 P.2d at 551. 25. Id. 26. 32 Colo. App. 203, 508 P.2d 796 (1973). 27......
-
When Is an “arbitration” Not an Arbitration?
...private body that examines the issues and facts in a case and may or may not recommend settlement procedures." [19] Fellows v. Latronica, 377 P.2d 547 (Colo. 1962). [20] City and Cty of Denver v. Denver Firefighters Local No. 858, 663 P.2d 1032 (Colo. 1983). [21] Water Works Employees Local......