Hunziker v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 205.
| Decision Date | 02 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 205.,205. |
| Citation | 160 A. 828 |
| Parties | HUNZIKER v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Certiorari by Mathilda Hunziker to review order of Civil Service Commission sustaining action of Prosecutor of the Pleas of Passale County in discharging prosecutor from her position as telephone operator in his office.
Order set aside.
Argued January term, 1932, before TRENCHARD and DONGES, JJ.
Minturn & Weinberger, of Newark, for prosecutor.
John D. Masterton, of Paterson, for defendants.
This writ of certiorari brings up the determination of the Civil Service Commission sustaining the action of the prosecutor of the pleas of Passaic county in discharging Mathilda Hunziker from her position as telephone operator in his office.
Miss Hunziker was employed in September, 1930, after securing the highest rating on examination by the Civil Service Commission. Her services apparently were entirely satisfactory under the former prosecutor of the pleas, and also under the present prosecutor until July, 1931. On July 21, 1931, she was discharged, when the prosecutor of the pleas notified her in writing that she was suspended on the following charges:
The testimony appears to establish that there were no written or definite rules of the office. The prosecutor of the pleas says that shortly after he assumed that office in April, 1931, he orally instructed the employees as to the course of conduct that he required them to pursue with relation to matters in the office. He says that he told them that confidential information was not to be disclosed to any one in the office or outside thereof. He said that he told Miss Hunziker that there had been leaks in the office and that the telephone was an important place to watch to prevent such leaks. He further said that he required that all mall should be brought to him. Miss Hunziker, in her testimony, clearly indicated that the instructions were not as definite and specific as would appear from the testimony of the prosecutor of the pleas.
The testimony would seem to present the following facts: That on July 10, 1931, a group of detectives were sent out to make some raids in Passaic. Miss Hunziker was at the telephone switchboard, and she testified that, as these men were going out of the office, she heard one of them say they were going to Passaic. This was between 9 and 10 o'clock in the forenoon. At about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, one Boyle, a prosecutor's detective, came on duty and asked Miss Hunziker where "all the gang" was. According to her testimony, she replied that they had gone to Passaic on a raid. She said she was not informed of the purpose of the trip to Passaic, but assumed that it was a raid. This was asserted to be such a violation of the "rule of the office" that confidential information must not be divulged to other members of the staff as to make imperative the dismissal of Miss Hunziker.
There can be no doubt that it is highly important that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunziker v. Kent
...three weeks after she had been restored to her position, in accordance with the judgment of this court. See Hunziker v. Civil Service Commission, 160 A. 828, 10 N. J. Misc. 828. While this is significant, it obviously does not furnish the basis for a conclusive inference of bad faith. Assum......
-
State Bd. of Med. Examiners v. Kempkes
... ... This was not necessary. The action was a civil one for the recovery of a penalty, and judgment for the ... ...