San Bernardino Fire and Police Protective League v. City of San Bernardino
| Decision Date | 23 January 1962 |
| Citation | 18 Cal.Rptr. 757,199 Cal.App.2d 401 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals |
| Parties | SAN BERNARDINO FIRE AND POLICE PROTECTIVE LEAGUE et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, a municipal corporation, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 6617. |
Rose, Klein & Marias, Los Angeles, and Chapman & Sprague, San Bernardino, for appellants.
Ralph Prince, City Atty., San Bernardino, and O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, for respondents.
The primary issue on this appeal concerns an interpretation of a section of the charter of the City of San Bernardino which attempts to provide a method of fixing the amount of salaries payable to employees of the police and fire departments of that city.
By declaration, in the nature of a preamble, the charter section in question, i. e., Section 186, 1 states that it establishes 'a basic standard for fixing salaries, classifications, and working conditions of the employees of the police and fire departments of the City of San Bernardino' and that the 'Mayor and Common Council in exercising the powers and control over these departments vested in them by this Charter shall hereafter be guided and limited' by the provisions thereinafter set forth.
Paragraph 'FIRST' of the Section, which follows the foregoing declaration, contains a number of provisions:
(1) Creates designated 'classes of positions';
(2) Directs that code or classification numbers, titles and salaries 'for such classes of positions' shall be fixed as set forth in the Section;
(3) Provides for and sets out seven such classes together with 'titles' of the positions included within each class, which are given the code or classification numbers 'P-1 through P-7'; and also provides that each of the classifications P-1 through P-3 shall be further divided into five 'steps,' representing different lengths of service and given the code or classification designations (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e), for example, P-1(a), P-1(b), etc. (See Footnote 1 for the adopted 'Class of Position' Schedule);
(4) States that in such code or classification numbers the 'letter 'P' represents 'Position";
(5) Authorizes the establishment of 'additional titles', and in this sense uses the term 'titles' synonymously with the term 'positions';
(6) Directs that 'any new titles shall be placed in the classification having the most nearly equal duties and responsibilities';
(7) Requires that all employees of the Police and Fire Departments, except clerical employees, shall be placed in one of the 'classes of position' set forth in the schedule which is made a part of this paragraph.
(8) Provides that each person employed in these departments 'shall be entitled to receive for his services in his position the applicable respective rate or rates of compensation prescribed for the class in which his position is allocated.'
Paragraph 'SECOND', which is the real source of controversy in this action.
(1) Prescribes a standard by which the Mayor and Council shall be 'guided and limited' in fixing the salaries payable to fire and police department employees;
(2) Directs that, at the beginning of each fiscal year the monthly salaries of employees whose positions are included in classification P-1, steps (a) through (e), shall be fixed 'at an amount of not less than the average of the monthly salaries, including increased cost of living bonuses, and all other financial remuneration by whatever other name known, paid or approved for payment to employees of like, or the most nearly comparable position of the Police and Fire Departments of the Cities of Riverside, South Gate, Burbank, Long Beach, and Los Angeles' during the fiscal year in question; that the 'salary paid in step 'a' shall be the same as the average of the starting salaries of the Comparable Positions in the five cities listed and the salary paid in step 'e' shall be the same salary as the average of the top salaries paid in the Comparable Position in the five cities listed'; and that the salaries paid in the intermediate steps shall be equalized; and
(3) Provides, in substance, that they salary payable to employees whose positions have been placed in classification P-1 constitutes a basic salary, and the salary payable to employees whose positions have been placed in classification P-2 through P-6 shall be in amounts not less than certain designated percentages over and above the basic salary.
It is apparent that the charter section, when read as a whole, which we must do (Select Base Materials v. Board of Equal., 51 Cal.2d 640, 645, 335 P.2d 672), imposes a limitation upon the exercise of the authority of the mayor and council to fix the salaries paid to policemen and firemen of the City of San Bernardino; by paragraph 'FIRST' thereof, directs that various positions in the police and fire departments of that city shall be placed in designated classifications, and that each employee of those departments shall be paid the salary allocated to the classification in which his position has been placed; and, by paragraph 'SECOND' thereof, prescribes a method to guide the mayor and council in establishing a base salary comparable to, but not less than the average of that paid to certain firemen and policemen by five designated cities.
The dispute at hand concerns the method adopted by the city council in establishing the basic salary for the fiscal years 1955-56 through 1958-59. The plaintiffs, individually and as representatives of all of the firemen and policemen of the City of San Bernardino, brought this action for the obvious purpose of obtaining a judicial interpretation of the charter section in question; contend that the method heretofore adopted does not follow the standard fixed by the charter; claim that if the proper method had been applied they would have been entitled to a greater wage, designating the same; and, in three separate counts, allege facts which they urge entitle them to a writ of mandate, ask for a declaration interpreting the charter section, and seek to recover the difference in wages which they claim is due them because the proper interpretation thereof was not applied by the council.
The evidence in this matter was presented by way of a stipulation of facts and the introduction of exhibits. The court determined that the method of computing the basic salaries which had been adopted by the city council was proper and decided in favor of the defendants. The plaintiffs appeal.
The pertinent parts of Paragraph SECOND, which designate the standard to be followed in fixing the amount of the salaries too be paid to employees included in classification P-1, direct that it shall be 'at an amount of not less than the average of the monthly salaries * * * paid * * * to employees of like or the most nearly comparable position of the Police and Fire Departments of the Cities of Riverside, South Gate, Burbank, Long Beach, and Los Angeles.' (Italics ours.) An interpretation of the italicized phrase, particularly the meaning of the word 'position' as used therein, is a prime subject for consideration on this appeal.
For the fiscal year 1958-1959, the positions, by title, included in classification P-1 were listed as fireman, dispatcher, patrolman, assistant humane officer, traffic officer, license inspector, and parking control officer. The latter position was created under the authority conferred by the charter provisions that 'additional titles may be established' and was placed in classification P-1 pursuant to the requirement that 'any new titles shall be placed in the classification having the most nearly equal duties and responsibilities.' The duties and responsibilities of a parking control officer, as stated in the stipulation of facts, are 'almost exclusively the issuing of citations for overparking in metered areas, and such employees do not have the power or duty to make arrests.' In creating the position of parking control officer and placing it in classification P-1, the council determined that the duties and responsibilities of that officer were most nearly equal to those of fireman, dispatcher, patrolman, assistant humane officer, traffic officer and license inspector. There is no contention that its decision in the premises was the result of fraud or arbitrary action. Consequently, the determination made is beyond the scope of judicial review. (City and County of San Francisco v. Boyd, 22 Cal.2d 685, 690, 140 P.2d 666; Berkeley High School Dist. v. Coit, 7 Cal.2d 132, 136-137, 59 P.2d 992; Nickerson v. San Bernardino, 179 Cal. 518, 522, 177 P. 465; Lesem v. Board of Retirement, 183 Cal.App.2d 289, 298, 6 Cal.Rptr. 608; Cobb v. Pasadena City Bd. of Education, 134 Cal.App.2d 93, 96, 285 P.2d 41.)
Under the formula used by the city council to fix salaries for the fiscal year 1958-1959, it first determined the average salary paid by the five designated cities for each position, i. e., 'title', included in classification P-1; then the average of these average salaries was determined; and the latter figure was accepted as the average salary paid by the guide cities to all persons included within classification P-1. The results obtained by an application of the foregoing formula, as appears from an exhibit in evidence which relates to employees in classification P-1, step (a), are charted in the following manner:
Los Long South
Angeles Beach Burbank Riverside Gate Average
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrolman 440 417 409 362 414 409
Fireman 440 417 409 362 414 409
Dispatcher 440 417 --- 362 --- 407
Traffic
Officer 440 417 409 362 414 409
Parking
Control
Officer --- --- --- 273 --- 273
...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terminal Plaza Corp. v. City and County of San Francisco
...to compel a public body to perform a ministerial act. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1085; see, San Bernardino Fire & Police Protective League v. City of San Bernardino, 199 Cal.App.2d 401, 417 [18 Cal.Rptr. 757]....) [Emphasis added.] [p] As stated, Resolution No. 176 was passed unanimously by the Com......
-
Glendale City Employees' Assn., Inc. v. City of Glendale
...v. Board of Supervisors (1964), 229 Cal.App.2d 796, 798--800, 40 Cal.Rptr. 541; San Bernardino Fire & Police Protective League v. City of San Bernardino (1962), 199 Cal.App.2d 401, 408, 18 Cal.Rptr. 757.14 See East Bay Mun. Employees Union v. County of Alameda, supra, 3 Cal.App.3d 578, 584,......
-
California State Employees' Assn. v. Flournoy
...(Tevis v. City & County of San Francisco, 43 Cal.2d 190, 200, 272 P.2d 757) . . ..' (San Bernardino Fire & Police Protective League v. City of San Bernardino, 199 Cal.App.2d 401, 417, 18 Cal.Rptr. 757, 767), and there is no possibility of such an available fund in the face of allegations, a......
-
Kugler v. Yocum
...communities. (For discussion of similar provisions in other cities, see, e.g., San Bernardino Fire & Police Protective League v. City of San Bernardino, supra, 199 Cal.App.2d 401, 18 Cal.Rptr. 757; Walker v. County of Los Angeles, supra, 55 Cal.2d 626, 12 Cal.Rptr. 671, 361 P.2d 247; Parker......