Mattison v. City of Signal Hill
| Decision Date | 19 April 1966 |
| Citation | 241 Cal.App.2d 576,50 Cal.Rptr. 682 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Samuel A. MATTISON, Petitioner and Appellant, v. CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, a municipal corporation, N. T. Whitney, Chief, Signal Hill Fire Department, Fred W. Baxter, City Administrator, City of Signal Hill, Civil Service Commission of the City of Signal Hill, Respondents. Civ. 29387. |
Bodle & Fogel, George Bodle, Stephen Reinhardt, Lawrence Drasin and Loren R. Rothschild, Los Angeles, for petitioner and appellant.
Roy J. Brown, Long Beach, for respondents.
Petitioner, who had been discharged from his employment as a fireman with the respondent City of Signal Hill, sought a writ of mandate in the superior court compelling respondents (city, fire chief, city administrator, and civil service commission) to reinstate him in that employment. The court found that there was substantial evidence to support the commission's findings that petitioner had on two occasions wilfully refused to obey orders of his superior officers, and that the proceedings relating to petitioner's discharge had been conducted in a fair and regular manner. Petitioner appeals from the judgment denying the writ.
Appellant contends that there is no substantial evidence to support the commission's findings that he had wilfully disobeyed orders of his superior officers on two occasions; that the acts of disobedience were not offenses within the meaning of section 11, subdivision c, of the Rules and Regulations of the Signal Hill Fire Department; and that the proceedings relating to his discharge were not conducted in accordance with said rules and regulations.
Petitioner did not present in the trial court a transcript of the proceedings (two hearings) before the commission. The trial court, however, conducted a hearing on the mandamus petition, and permitted several persons (including petitioner) to testify as to their versions of what had occurred at the commission hearings. The court also received in evidence a tape recording 1 of a portion of the proceedings at one of the hearings. Thus, no transcript of the testimony at the commission hearings was presented to the trial court. 'Since it was incumbent upon the petitioner--both in mandate and certiorari--to prepare and file in the superior court a transcript of such testimony if he wished to contend that the evidence was insufficient, his failure to do so precludes an attack on the evidence on this appeal.' (Fickeisen v. Civil Service Com., 98 Cal.App.2d 419, 420--421, 220 P.2d 605, 607; see Black v. State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 909, 289 P.2d 863.) 'It is well settled that in a proceeding of this kind the hearing is a type of de novo trial but that the administrative record must be presented to the court.' (Wisler v. Cal. State Bd. of Accountancy, 136 Cal.App.2d 79, 84, 288 P.2d 322, 326.)
The evidence presented in the trial court does include various documents pertaining to the proceedings relating to petitioner's discharge. From those documents, and from undisputed statements of fact in the briefs filed in this court, the events and proceedings relating to petitioner's discharge may be summarized as set forth in the following paragraphs.
From 1960 to 1963 petitioner was a civil service employee (fireman) of the City of Signal Hill. Prior to July 29, 1963, petitioner had, on several occasions, refused to respect the authority of his superior officers in the fire department. On July 29, 1963, the fire chief 'posted an Inter-office Memorandum', which provided as follows: 'Effective August 1, 1963, all personnel will wear shoes of the following description * * * no buckles, or decorative designs will be allowed.'
On August 2, 1963, petitioner appeared for work wearing shoes with buckles. (Petitioner, in his brief, admits that he wore the shoes 'with buckles, in violation of the written memorandum.') At approximately 9 a.m. (August 2) the fire chief ordered petitioner to leave work, and to return after he had obtained proper shoes. Petitioner returned to work on August 4 wearing the same shoes, but with the buckles removed therefrom.
On August 12, the chief sent the following memorandum to the city administrator: A copy of the letter was sent to the civil service commission and a copy was served on petitioner.
Petitioner filed an appeal from his 'suspension,' and the commission conducted a hearing of the appeal on September 9, 1963. On October 2, 1963, the commission sent a document, signed by the commissioners, to the city council. The document, a copy of which was served on petitioner on October 5, provides as follows:
'At the request of Mr. Samuel A. Mattison, Fireman, Signal Hill Fire Department, the Civil Service Commission did convene on September 9, 1963 for the purpose of holding a hearing.
'Mr. Mattison's grievance was based on the loss of one (1) days pay as the result of a disciplinary action. Charge: noncompliance with uniform shoe requirements.
'The Commission heard the statements of Mr. Mattison, Fire Chief Neil Whitney and City Administrative Officer Fred Baxter. The personnel record of Mr. Mattison was also reviewed.
'After a lengthy discussion, the following conclusions were reached:
that Mr. Mattison has refused on other occasions to respect the authority of his superior officers; 2
that Mr. Mattison was given ample opportunity to comply with the orders given him;
that Mr. Mattison did have the buckles removed from his shoes shortly after disciplinary action was taken and thereby causing the shoes to be acceptable for uniform use.
'Therefore, it is the ruling of the Civil Service Commission that the disciplinary action taken by Fire Chief Neil Whitney be sustained.
'The undersigned of the Civil Service Commission do hereby certify the above decision.'
On October 14, 1963, petitioner went to see the city administrator with reference to the suspension. While waiting in the administrator's office, he was met by the fire chief, who ordered him not to go directly to the administrator, but to proceed through the proper channels for presenting grievances. Petitioner refused to comply with the chief's order, and, on the next day (October 15), the chief served a document on petitioner (and sent a copy thereof to the city administrator). The document, which is in the form of a letter to petitioner, and which is signed by the chief, provides as follows:
'You are hereby terminated from the Signal Hill Fire Department, as of 4:00 PM, October 15, 1963.
'You are charged with direct and intentional refusal to obey an order of an officer of this department on October 14, 1963, at which time, you did by-pass the chain-of-command by going to the city administrator without permission of the fire chief. (Signal Hill Fire Department, Rules and Regulations, Section 11, Article (c)).
'This constitutes the second offense of the same rule.'
On October 17, 1963, petitioner filed an appeal with the civil service commission from the termination of October 15. The commission conducted a hearing of the appeal on December 9, 1963; and, on January 14, 1964, sent the following document, which is signed by the commissioners, to the city council:
'We the Signal Hill Civil Service Commission, do sustain the action of Chief Whitney, as stated in his letter of October 15, 1963, with the following recommendations:
1. that Mr. Samuel A. Mattison did violate Section 11, Article c, of the Fire Department Rules and Regulations as charged in the dismissal letter of October 15, 1963;
2. that this violation did constitute the second offense of the same charge;
3. it is our recommendation that Mr. Samuel A. Mattison be given one (1) months severance pay by reason of the long duration of his hearings; approximately three (3) months.'
On February 27, 1964, the city council voted to ratify the decision of the commission (as set forth in the commission's letter of October 15), and voted to overrule the commission's recommendation (in the letter) that petitioner be given one-month's severance pay.
Petitioner then filed (on April 22) the herein petition for a writ of mandamus.
Appellant first contends that there is no substantial evidence to support the commission's findings that he wilfully disobeyed orders of his superior officers on two occasions.
As above stated, petitioner, although it was incumbent upon him to do so, did not present in the trial court a transcript of the proceedings before the commission. Apparently he was represented at one of the hearings by the president of the Los Angeles County Fire Fighters Association (Mr. Hyde). The record does not show whether petitioner or Mr. Hyde requested that the proceedings be transcribed. It appears that a secretary employed by the commission recorded 'minutes' at the hearings, but petitioner did not present the minutes in the trial court. To establish what did occur at the hearings, petitioner presented (in the trial court) testimony by Mr. Hyde, a spectator (Mr. George, a fireman), and himself, as to their versions of what occurred. 3
The substance of petitioner's testimony at the trial was as follows: At the first hearing he told the commissioners that the chief did not follow the proper procedure in suspending him; he (petitioner) only had a few days' notice to comply with the shoe order; he wears a size 10 1/2A shoe, which is a narrow width and difficult to find in the stores; the chief would not tell him where he could find the proper shoes; he left the hearing before it was over; the chief testified before he (petitioner) left the hearing, but he could not recall what the chief had said other than that it was 'sort of a general denial'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Central Platte Natural Resources Dist. v. State of Wyo.
...785 P.2d 98 (App.1989); Coggins v. Public Employee Relations Board, 2 Kan.App.2d 416, 581 P.2d 817 (1978); Mattison v. City of Signal Hill, 241 Cal.App.2d 576, 50 Cal.Rptr. 682 (1966); Faulkner v. Cal. Toll Bridge Authority, 40 Cal.2d 317, 253 P.2d 659 (1953) (in bank). Cf. Babish v. Babish......
-
Perry Farms, Inc. v. Agricultural Labor Relations Bd.
...inference, and must resolve all conflicts of evidence in support of the administrative decision); Mattison v. City of Signal Hill (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 576, 583, 50 Cal.Rptr. 682 (court must resolve all doubts as to sufficiency of the evidence in favor of the findings and decisions of the a......
-
Feist v. Rowe
...obtain judicial review. (Fickeisen v. Civil Service Comm. (1950), 98 Cal.App.2d 419, 421, 220 P.2d 605; Mattison v. City of Signal Hill (1966), 241 Cal.App.2d 576, 582, 50 Cal.Rptr. 682.) The cost of furnishing the transcript is to be paid by the person seeking review. (Gov.Code, § 11523.) ......
-
Phillips v. Civil Service Com.
...findings and decision (Foster v. Civil Service Com. (1983) 142 Cal.App.3d 444, 453, 190 Cal.Rptr. 893; Mattison v. City of Signal Hill (1966) 241 Cal.App.2d 576, 578-579, 50 Cal.Rptr. 682) and shall conclude the appeal presents only questions of The County's civil service rules spell out th......