Schneider v. Civil Service Commission of Los Angeles County
| Decision Date | 28 November 1955 |
| Citation | 137 Cal.App.2d 277,290 P.2d 306 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Meier SCHNEIDER, Appellant, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, acting ex officio as the Civil Service Commission of the Air Pollution Control District of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and Winston W. Crouch, Harry Albert and Hayden F. Jones, constituting the members of the said Commission, Air Pollution Control District of the County of Los Angeles, Air Pollution Control Board of the Air Pollution Control District of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, and Roger W. Jessup, Herbert C. Legg, John Anson Ford, Burton Chace and Kenneth Hahn, constituting the members of the said Board, and Gordon P. Larson, Air Pollution Control Officer and Director of said District, Respondents. Civ. 21145. |
Preston D. Orem, Pasadena, for appellant.
Harold W. Kennedy, County Counsel, Andrew O. Porter, Deputy County Counsel, Los Angeles, for respondents.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County denying a peremptory writ of mandate and discharging an alternative writ theretofore issued, thereby affirming the action of the Civil Service Commission of Los Angeles County sustaining the discharge of appellant from his civil service position as Senior Air Pollution Chemist of the Air Pollution Control District of said county.
On March 31, 1954 appellant was served with an amended letter of discharge containing 15 charges upon which his discharge was predicated. Appellant answered said letter and requested a hearing before respondent Civil Service Commission. The matter was tried before said commission at a formal two-day hearing at which witnesses testified under oath, the testimony was recorded by a court reporter, and documentary evidence was received. The reporter's transcript of the commission hearing and the original exhibits were in evidence before the superior court, and, pursuant to Rule 10(b), Rules on Appeal, have been transmitted to this court.
The foregoing amended letter of discharge set forth, 'Your attitude, inability and refusal to carry out orders, violation of direct orders, your approach to the air pollution control program and your actions in regard to the supervisors and fellow employees are such that your continued employment is a detriment to the Air Pollution Control District.' Then follows fifteen specific charges, each set up in a numbered paragraph.
At the hearing before respondent commission, several of the charges were dismissed, while others were found 'not true' or 'not established', leaving charges 1, 2, 5, part of 12, 13, 14 and 15, upon which the question arises as to whether the evidence supports respondent commission's finding that appellant's discharge was justified.
Following the hearing before respondent commission the latter made findings upon the charges preferred against appellant from which the following conclusions were made:
'The Commission therefore concludes that said employee, Meier Schneider, refused to carry out orders, violated direct orders. A majority of the Commission concludes that said employee was guilty of actions making his continued employment in the District a detriment to the District.
'The majority of the Commission therefore concludes that the facts and reasons stated justify the discharge of said Meier Schneider.
'Dated this 8th day of July, 1954.
'/s/ Winston W. Crouch 'President
'/s/ Hayden F. Jones
'Dated this 8th day of July, 1954
'/s/ Harry Albert'
Appellant's first contention is that the Findings of Fact upon a material issue are contradictory and irreconcilable, and therefore the judgment must be reversed. The claimed contradictory finding concerns the truth or falsity of Paragraph XII of appellant's petition for writ of mandate which reads as follows: 'That, as stated by Civil Service Commission Member Harry Albert in his dissenting opinion Exhibit 'C', (page 4), the 'facts do not justify the discharge of Meier Schneider', nor did petitioner's actions make 'his continued employment a detriment."
Paragraph I of the Findings of Fact by the trial court reads in part, 'That all the allegations of Paragraphs * * * XII * * * of the Petition for Writ of Mandate are true * * *'.
It is appellant's contention that by adopting Paragraph XII of the Petition for Writ of Mandate as 'true' the court found, quoting from said Paragraph XII, that the 'facts do not justify the discharge of Meier Schneider', nor did appellant's actions make 'his continued employment a detriment'. Appellant insists that this finding is contradictory of and irreconcilable with that portion of Paragraph III of the Findings of Fact which states, 'That there was substantial evidence to support each and every one of the findings made by the Civil Service Commission, and the finding support the Commission's conclusion that Petitioner's discharge was justified'. Appellant insists that the court below adopts both the 'findings of the majority of the Commission and the findings of Commissioner Albert in that the sentence quoted does not specify the findings of a 'majority of the Commission,' but specifies the 'findings made by the Civil Service Commission,' which included the minority findings of Commissioner Albert.'
The weight of authority supports the rule that on appeal findings of fact must be read together and so construed as to uphold rather than to defeat the judgment. Ambiguities or uncertainties in findings must, if reasonably possible, be construed to support the judgment. Woodbine v. Van Horn, 29 Cal.2d 95, 109, 173 P.2d 17; City of Signal Hill v. Wyse, 9 Cal.App.2d 641, 642, 50 P.2d 1076; Ensele v. Jolley, 188 Cal. 297, 302, 204 P. 1085. In the case at bar, although the findings might well be improved, the claimed inconsistency appears to be one of words rather than ideas. Having in mind the prevailing rule of liberal interpretation of findings and reading them in their entirety, we are persuaded that the claimed conflict is not material and certainly could not result in a miscarriage of justice, Calif.Const. art. VI, sec. 4 1/2; Civ.Code Proc. sec. 475. Manifestly, no prejudice occurred to appellant and unless injury or prejudice to appellant ensued from the claimed error a reversal is not warranted. Tupman v. Haberkern, 208 Cal. 256, 263, 280 P. 970. Paragraph XII of appellant's petition alleged that Commissioner Harry Albert made certain statements which are quoted from the conclusions arrived at by respondent commission and the court merely found that it was 'true' that he made such statements. The court found 'That there was substantial evidence to support each and every one of the findings made by the Civil Service Commission, and the findings support the Commission's conclusion that Petitioner's discharge was justified.' The findings of a 'majority of the Commission' constitute the findings of the commission, while the dissent of Commissioner Albert does not. The sole question before the trial court was a determination of whether there was substantial evidence in the record to support the findings of respondent commission, Civ.Code Proc. sec. 1094.5. The court made its findings on that issue. Therefore, the truth or falsity of Paragraph XII of appellant's petition for writ of mandate and the finding thereon is neither material nor prejudicial.
Appellant next contends there is no substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of respondent commission in that the facts do not justify his discharge.
Count 1 charges that appellant was instructed to collect the young leaves from the previous year's growth from four types of vegetation for the purpose of performing fluoride analyses. Instead he substituted a method of his own not acceptable to the district, and although asked several times to follow his supervisor's instructions, he failed to do so. He took numerous samples from trees other than the ones specified. The commission found these facts to be true. That determination is supported by the testimony of Gordon P. Larson, Director of the Air Pollution Control District, and other testimony adduced at the hearing.
Count 2, charging a violation of office procedure for submitting papers for typing, was found true by the commission. Some of the evidence on this question showed: That petitioner violated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Furnish v. Board of Medical Examiners
...Exam., 216 Cal. 285, 300, 14 P.2d 67; Black v. State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 912, 289 P.2d 863; Schneider v. Civil Service Comm., 137 Cal.App.2d 277, 285, 290 P.2d 306; Newman v. Board of Civil Service Comrs., 140 Cal.App.2d 907, 912, 296 P.2d 41; Olson v. Watson, 143 Cal.App.2......
-
Munro v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd.
...732, 739, 305 P.2d 1012; Newman v. Board of Civil Service Com'rs, 140 Cal.App.2d 907, 912, 296 P.2d 41; Schneider v. Civil Service Commission, 137 Cal.App.2d 277, 285, 290 P.2d 306; Black v. State Personnel Board, 136 Cal.App.2d 904, 912, 289 P.2d 863. It would seem that California presents......
-
Borders v. Anderson
...(See Greenblatt v. Martin, 189 Cal.App.2d 787, 789 .) It is appropriately stated by Mr. Justice White in Schneider v. Civil Service Comm., 137 Cal.App.2d 277, 284, 290 P.2d 306, 310 ' The Civil Service Commission of Los Angeles County is a local administrative tribunal exercising quasi judi......
-
Haywood v. American River Fire Protection Dist., C023763
...cause to terminate employment. (Hostetter v. Alderson, supra, 38 Cal.2d at pp. 504-505, 241 P.2d 230; Schneider v. Civil Service Com. (1955) 137 Cal.App.2d 277, 284-285, 290 P.2d 306.) Thus, there is an obvious distinction between an employee who has become medically unable to perform his u......