Jarvis v. Henderson

• Decision Date: 03 April 1953
• Court: California Supreme Court
• Parties: JARVIS v. HENDERSON et al. Sac. 6281.

Page 426

255 P.2d 426

40 Cal.2d 600

JARVIS v. HENDERSON et al.

Sac. 6281.

Supreme Court of California, in Bank.

April 3, 1953.

Earl D. Desmond and George W. Artz, Jr., Sacramento, for petitioner and appellant.

Fred N. Howser and Edmund G. Brown, Attys. Gen., and Wilmer W. Morse, Deputy Atty. Gen., for respondents and appellants.

EDMONDS, Justice.

The principal question here, as in Martin v. Henderson (Redwine v. Henderson), Cal.Sup., 255 P.2d 416, is whether a former state highway patrol officer is entitled to payment for hours worked prior to February 6, 1943, in excess of regular hours of duty, for which he received no compensating time off during his period of service. An additional question presented is whether such officer may receive payment for work performed before that date on days which normally would have been days off or holidays.

The facts are undisputed. Jarvis entered service with the highway patrol in April, 1931, and was appointed to the civil service position of state traffic officer in March, 1933. In July, 1934, he was assigned to the duties of personal bodyguard and chauffeur for the Governor. This assignment terminated in January, 1939, when he returned to the regular duties of a state traffic officer. He resigned from the department on January 31, 1948.

It is stipulated that between January 1, 1935, and December 31, 1938, Jarvis worked 129 days more than would have been required by a six-day work week less all legal holidays. Between January 1, 1935, and August 31, 1939, it is stipulated that he worked 7,682 hours in excess of what would have been required of him had his duties been confined to an eight-hour day. A further stipulation is that his salary was fixed on amonthly basis and was fully paid.

In July, 1944, Jarvis demanded equivalent days off for the claimed 129 extra days of work. On September 1, 1944, the chief of the highway patrol denied his request upon the ground that any right to compensating time off was suspended by Headquarters General Order No. 295. In 1945, he filed an affidavit of his claim for overtime, pursuant to Information Bulletin No. 323 issued by the chief of the highway patrol. This claim was rejected on August 21, 1945, by Headquarters Information Bulletin No. 329 and he never received any compensating time off for such overtime.

The chief of the highway patrol on May 17, 1933, issued Headquarters Information Bulletin No. 52, effective immediately, providings that traffic officers 'will take two successive days off every second week'. Headquarters General Order No. 243, issued on July 23, 1936, permitted the accumulation of days off under certain circumstances and provided for the allowance of 'time off in lieu of overtime'. According to the order: 'Effective immediately, all days lost and time accumulated previous to January 1, 1936, are cancelled.'

Effective October 1, 1939, headquarters General Order No. 295 canceled Bulletin No. 52 and Order No. 243. It suspended 'all accumulative days accumulated prior to January 1, 1939'. In addition, it provided: 'In the future employees ordered by their superiors to work on their regular days off or legal holidays, will be allowed a day in lieu thereof which will be termed an accumulative day. All accumulative days approved by the immediate superior must be taken as soon thereafter as is practical and at the convenience of the service.' It also provided for time off for overtime work. Martin v. Henderson, supra.

Order No. 295 was canceled by Headquarters General Order No. 394, effective August 5, 1942. By the new order: 'All days accumulated prior to January 1, 1939 remain suspended.' It provided that: 'Employees ordered to work on their regular days off or on legal holidays will be allowed a day in lieu thereof which shall be termed an accumulative day. Squad Commanders shall arrange for the taking of accumulative days as rapidly as possible without undue impairment of the service.' Provision was also made for time off in lieu of overtime. Martin v. Henderson, supra.

Information Bulletin No. 287 was issued December 9, 1942, in clarification of Order No. 394. It stated that 'it is entirely optional with the immediate superior whether compensating time off is allowed and when it shall be taken. If an employee is resigning * * * any overtime Must Be Allowed Before Employee Works His Final Day. * * * There is nothing in the Patrol regulations which establishes a mandatory eight hour day. The determination of what constitutes overtime and if and when compensatory time off shall be taken is to be made by the immediate superior of the individual concerned. * * * Any individual who believes he is being discriminated against has the right to appeal his case through the proper channels to Headquarters.'

On September 29, 1943, Headquarters General Order No. 428 canceled Order No. 394. It provided that state traffic officers 'shall not receive compensating time off for time worked in excess of their normal work schedule or be permitted to accumulate overtime for such work'. Also, when a state traffic officer 'is required to work a full shift or longer on a day that he is not normally required to work he shall be allowed a compensating day off. If the compensating day off cannot be granted within ten days without unduly impairing the services of the California Highway Patrol, the employee shall be permitted to accumulate to his credit such compensating day off, provided that he shall at no time be entitled, without the consent in writing of the Chief of the California Highway Patrol, to a greater total than ten working days'.

Order No. 428 was superseded by Headquarters General Order No. 432, permitting the accumulation of days off for work done in addition to a six-day week less legal holidays after November 17, 1943. This order was in turn canceled by Headquarters General Order No. 448 on September 5, 1944, which permitted 'compensating time off in lieu of overtime worked, provided that in no event shall it be permissible for any person to accumulate a total greater than 240 uncompensated overtime hours. * * * (Ordinary 'days off' or 'holidays' worked since November 17, 1943, which formerly have been considered as 'accumulative days' under Headquarters General Order No. 432, shall be reduced to overtime hours worked and included in the maximum total of 240 hours).'

On June 5, 1945, the chief of the highway patrol issued Information Bulletin No. 323 requiring proof of any claim for overtime hours accumulated prior to September 29, 1943. Each of the claims presented pursuant to this bulletin was rejected and all overtime hours claimed to have been accumulated prior to September 29, 1943, were canceled by Headquarters Information Bulletin No. 329, issued on August 21, 1945. Martin v. Henderson, supra.

The first statute authorizing payment upon separation for accumulated overtime became effective February 6, 1943. Stats.1943, ch. 20, § 2, p. 136; now Govt.Code § 18005; Martin v. Henderson, supra. On June 7, 1943, section 73 was added to the State Civil Service Act, Stats.1937, ch. 753, providing for a 'normal work week' to be established by the State Personnel Board for each civil service class and requiring overtime compensation or time off in lieu of overtime. Stats.1943, ch. 1041, § 1, pp. 2976-2977; now Govt.Code §§ 18020-18021, 18023-18024. Not until September 15, 1945, was there any statute entitling civil servants to time off on designated holidays or to compensation or time off in lieu thereof for holiday work. Stats.1945, ch. 1016, p. 1962; Govt.Code § 18025.

The trial court found that, during the period Jarvis worked overtime, an eight-hour work day was established as normal for all members of the highway patrol and all time worked beyond that was compensated by equivalent time off as a matter of right. The understanding that such time off would be granted was, the trial court found, 'a part of the contract of employment entered into by and between the appointing power of the California State Highway Patrol and * * * Jarvis upon his entering upon his service * * * (in 1931) and continued to be part of said contract of employment during the term of his employment'. It also found, as a part of the contract of employment, an understanding that one day out of every seven, exclusive of holidays, should be a day off as a matter of right and if a traffic officer worked on a day which should have been a day off or holiday, he should be compensated by an equivalent day off. According to the findings, Jarvis was entitled to cash compensation for overtime and extra days for which time off had not been granted at the rate of pay he was earning at the time the overtime and extra days were worked. The court found that no cause of action arose to enforce...