Mullin v. Ringle
| Decision Date | 02 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. A--122,A--122 |
| Citation | 27 N.J. 250,142 A.2d 216 |
| Parties | Peter J. MULLIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Joshua RINGLE et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
Arthur C. Mullen, Jersey City, argued the cause for plaintiff-appellant (William P. Taylor, Jersey City, attorney).
Meyer Pesin, Asst. Corp. Counsel of Jersey City, and Francis X. Hayes, Jersey City, argued the cause for defendant-respondent John Ahearn (Ezra L. Nolan, Corp. Counsel, Jersey City, attorney for and of counsel with all defendants-respondents except John Ahearn).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
The 47 defendants involved in this appeal are employees of the City of Jersey City. Forty-six of them bear the designation of 'Park Patrolman' and one is classified as 'Park Police Chief.' All of them are assigned to and work within the Department of Parks and Public Property. Plaintiff, a taxpayer, challenges the validity of their appointment, claiming that no statutory authority exists for the establishment by a municipality of a Park Police unit. The trial court held that the city lacked power to create a Department of Park Police but that employment of the individual defendants as park patrolmen and Park police chief was within its legislatively delegated competence. Some incidental questions involved in the controversy were also disposed of by the judgment, but review is not sought with respect to them. The appeal was certified to this court on our own motion.
Jersey City has adopted the commission form of government and now functions under the Walsh Act through a board of commissioners. N.J.S.A. 40:70--1 et seq. This board has all of the municipal powers formerly exercised by the mayor and council, including those previously conferred on the city by any special or general law, which is not in conflict with the Walsh Act. N.J.S.A. 40:71--8; 40:72--2, 3.
By virtue of this inheritance, the board became invested with control over the playgrounds and recreation places of the city. N.J.S.A. 40:184--1 et seq. And it was empowered to appoint such a number of 'custodians and assistants' as are deemed necessary and who, 'while on duty and for the purpose of preserving order and the observance of' rules and regulations, shall 'have all of the powers and authority of police officers of the respective cities in and for which they are severally appointed.' N.J.S.A. 40:184--3. Jurisdiction over playgrounds and recreation places has been assigned to the Department of Parks and Public Property, and at the time of institution of this action the defendant Joshua Ringle was the director of such department. N.J.S.A. 40:72--4, 5 and 6.
As far back as 1946 the city had employed a number of persons to work in playgrounds and recreation places. They were denominated laborers on the records of the Department of Parks and they were sworn in as special policemen. Their duties were to patrol and police such places and to maintain order.
In January 1950 the board of commissioners requested the Department of Civil Service to make a reclassification survey of its personnel. The basic idea was to set up proper classifications and designations of municipal employees according to their specific functions, to eliminate inconsistencies in job titles and inequities, if any, in salaries. The task was undertaken by the Department and was completed in December 1950.
According to the testimony of the civil service representatives, the Modus operandi of their work was first to ascertain from each employee the specific nature of his duties and then to verify the description with his immediate superior and with the director of his department. From this base, the particular classification was fashioned. Approximately 400 class titles were included in the survey. The final report submitted to the city contained 201 printed pages and established job designations for 4,425 employees.
In the course of the study the civil service functionaries obtained information as to the employees of the playgrounds and recreation places, whose activities have been referred to above and who had been appointed special policemen and were classed as laborers on the records of the city. Their investigation disclosed that these men were actually performing the work of park patrolmen. Their duties, in the opinion of the classification technicians, were best described by the title 'Park Patrolman'--a title, according to the executive assistant to the president of the Civil Service Commission, 'used in several other places throughout the State.' This designation was recommended in the final report. And it was advised also that the principal superior of such workers should be called 'Park Police Chief.' It is undisputed that the titles originated in the manner explained.
The report was entitled 'City of Jersey City Reclassification Survey.' The duties prescribed for the classification in question were set forth therein as follows:
'Park Patrolman.
'During an assigned tour of duty, patrols parks to assure the protection of life and property, prevents and detects crime; enforces laws and ordinances.
'Park Police Chief.
'Has charge of the discipline and the park police activities intended to provide protection of life and property, detection and prevention of crime, and the enforcement of laws and ordinances in City parks.'
On May 1, 1951 the survey was adopted and the job classifications suggested were made effective by ordinance, entitled 'An Ordinance Adopting Classification Schedule, Salary Range Schedule And Duties Classification Schedule Of The Employees Of The City of Jersey City, And Establishing And Creating In And For The Said City of Jersey City The Respective Offices And Positions Mentioned Therein.' Section 1 provided:
'That the following classes of positions, duties of which are set forth as part of this Ordinance by reference to the 'City of Jersey City Reclassification Survey' prepared by the New Jersey Civil Service Department, now on file in the office of the City Clerk of Jersey City, are hereby created: * * *'
Two of the positions appearing in the schedule as part of the ordinance are: 'Park Patrolman' and 'Park Police Chief.'
Since May 1951 the defendants have borne the designations assigned to them. They wear uniforms adorned with badges inscribed 'Park Police'; they carry weapons, and they have some patrol cars and other recognized police equipment. Appellant contends that the city has no authority to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jersey City v. Department of Civil Service, A--15
...in the past. What, then, of the failure to specify the number of new positions created in each classification? In Mullin v. Ringle, 27 N.J. 250, 142 A.2d 216 (1958), our Supreme Court dealt with a somewhat similar attack on this same ordinance. There it was held that the necessarily cumbers......
-
Nolan v. Witkowski
...corporation counsel at $3,500 per year, or 20 at $10,000 a year, without any notice to the public. Plaintiffs cite Mullin v. Ringle, 27 N.J. 250, 142 A.2d 216 (1958), and Hamill v. City of Clifton, 10 N.J.Misc. 843, 160 A. 882, 883 (Sup.Ct.1932), for the proposition that the ordinance need ......
-
Greggio v. City of Orange
... ... Grants of power to municipal corporations must be liberally construed. Mullin v. Ringle, 27 N.J. 250, 256, 142 A.2d 216 ... Page 461 ... (1958); New Jersey Constitution of 1947, Art. IV, Sec. VII, par. 11; R.S. 40:42--4, ... ...
-
Town of Nutley v. Forney
...must be had for the presumptive validity of an ordinance. Zampieri v. River Vale Tp., 29 N.J. 599, 152 A.2d 28 (1959); Mullin v. Ringle, 27 N.J. 250, 142 A.2d 216 (1958). With respect to the validity of such regulations concerning dogs, all presumptions are likewise in favor of validity. 62......