Hale v. Randolph County Com'n
Decision Date | 08 December 1982 |
Citation | 423 So.2d 893 |
Parties | Kathy HALE, Ricky Fincher, Carey Holloway, Eddy Ware, and Howard McCain, Jr. v. RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION; Harry Murphy, as member of the Randolph County Commission; Calvin Shipp, as member of the Randolph County Commission; Jim Tom Willingham, as member of the Randolph County Commission; Fred McCain, as member of the Randolph County Commission. Civ. 3305-X. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
S. Sanford Holliday, Wedowee, for appellants.
John A. Tinney, Roanoke, for appellees.
The issue in the instant case can be stated in a simple and direct fashion: can the Randolph County Commission, in the face of a statute authorizing overtime pay for deputy sheriffs, limit the number of overtime hours worked to emergency situations? We conclude that the answer is in the negative.
On May 28, 1981 the Alabama legislature passed Act No. 81-868, which provides in pertinent part:
Thereafter, on July 27, 1981, the Randolph County Commission adopted the following resolution:
The Randolph County Sheriff, in submitting his budget request for the fiscal year 1981-82, included an amount for overtime. This amount, however, was deleted when the commission adopted the annual budget. After the deputies each worked overtime for the months of September, October, November, and December of 1981 and January, February, and March of 1982 at the sheriff's request, claims were submitted to and denied by the commission. The deputies brought an action in the Randolph County Circuit Court seeking to recover for the overtime hours in question. The court, in an order dated April 23, 1982, awarded the deputies overtime pay for the months worked in 1981-82 but held that the county commission had the authority to limit overtime hours to actual emergencies in the future. The deputies have appealed to this court from that portion of the order which limits their future overtime.
As a general proposition, it is axiomatic that "[a] person claiming fees or costs must point to the definite law authorizing it; the law will not be extended beyond its letter; the law may impose duties upon public officers without providing compensation therefor." Mobile County v. Williams, 180 Ala. 639, 61 So. 963 (1913). Courts have also held that a deputy sheriff or other public official is not entitled to claim overtime in the absence of a statute or contract authorizing it. See Rusk v. Whitmire, 91 Nev. 689, 541 P.2d 1097 (1975); Donohue v. Police Commissioner, 267 Md. 612, 298 A.2d 437 (1973); City of Homestead v. DeWitt, 126 So.2d 582 (Fla.App.1961).
In the instant case Act No. 81-868 authorizes overtime pay or compensatory leave for deputy sheriffs who work "more than eight hours during any one day or for more than forty hours during any calendar week ...." The deputy sheriffs argue that the language of Act No. 81-868 is mandatory, i.e., any overtime work done by them at the direction of the sheriff must be compensated for either by compensatory time off or in cash. The Randolph County Commission, on the other hand, takes the position that the statute does not mandate that deputy sheriffs must be paid for an unlimited amount of overtime work. Hence, it can disallow overtime pay completely or pay for overtime worked only in certain enumerated emergency type situations.
Statutes dealing with the salaries of public officials are generally held to be mandatory. Navarro County v. Howard, 61 Tex.Civ.App. 335, 129 S.W. 857 (1910). We conclude that Act No. 81-868 is mandatory in the sense that a deputy sheriff may now be compensated for overtime work; whereas before he or she could not be so compensated.
We also conclude from the context of Act No....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Perdue v. Green
...to the PACT Trust Fund cannot be overcome by any statutory language allegedly implying otherwise. See Hale v. Randolph Cnty. Comm'n, 423 So.2d 893, 896 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (rejecting argument by deputy sheriffs that county commission must pay all overtime incurred by them because that “would......
-
Perdue ex rel. Perdue v. Green, 1101337
...to the PACT Trust Fund cannot be overcome by any statutory language allegedly implying otherwise. See Hale v. Randolph Cnty. Comm'n, 423 So. 2d 893, 896 (Ala. Civ. App. 1982) (rejecting argument by deputy sheriffs that county commission must pay all overtime incurred by them because that "w......
-
Parker v. Amerson
...No. 16, 225 Ala. 359, 143 So. 345 (1932) (to permit legislature to set fees of sheriff of Jefferson County); Hale v. Randolph County Commission, 423 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1982) (question of who regulated overtime pay for deputies); Osborn v. Henry, 200 Ala. 353, 76 So. 119 (1917). In none ......
-
Geneva County Com'n v. Tice
...a deputy sheriff is not entitled to claim any overtime in the absence of a statute or contract authorizing it, Hale v. Randolph County Comm'n, 423 So.2d 893 (Ala.Civ.App.1982), but we find that the Alabama legislature has authorized the payment of overtime pay to deputy sheriffs. Ala.Code 1......