Stagge v. City Service Commission of Baltimore City

• Decision Date: 02 July 1958
• Docket Number: No. 286,286
• Parties: William H. STAGGE and William Heinekamp v. CITY SERVICE COMMISSION OF BALTIMORE CITY and Board of Fire Commissioners of Baltimore City.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 466

217 Md. 466

143 A.2d 502

William H. STAGGE and William Heinekamp v. CITY SERVICE COMMISSION OF BALTIMORE CITY and Board of Fire

Commissioners of Baltimore City.

No. 286.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

July 2, 1958.

Samuel M. Campanaro and Wilson K. Barnes, Baltimore, for appellants.

Shirley Brannock Jones, Asst. City Solicitor, Baltimore (Thomas N. Biddison, City Solicitor, Hugo A. Ricciuti, Deputy City Solicitor, F. Clifford Hane, Asst. City Solicitor, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellees.

Before BRUNE, C. J., and HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT and HORNEY, JJ.

HAMMOND, Judge.

The City Service Commission of Baltimore determined to hold an open examination to fill a vacancy in the position of Superintendent of Maintenance in the Fire Department. Appellant Stagge, who is Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance, feeling that an open examination would deprive him of the advantages his experience and seniority would give him in a promotional examination and that the City Charter and the rules of the Commission required a promotional examination, filed a petition in equity against the Commission and the Board of Fire Commissioners of Baltimore City to enjoin the holding of the open examination. The Commission and the Board demurred to an amended bill, alleging that the Commission had discretion, of which it could be deprived, as to whether the examination should be open or promotional, and that Stagge had not shown in the petition that he would be hurt as to tenure, compensation or classification by the holding of the open examination. The decree appealed from sustained the demurrer and dismissed the amended petition, and also rescinded on order that had been passed ex parte five months after the filing of the original petition by which the appellant, William Heinekamp, president of the Classified Municipal Employees Association, had been permitted, as an individual, to intervene.

The amended petition alleges that Stagge had served satisfactorily for forty-three years in the repair shop of the Fire Department; that he was serving as 'Battalion Chief-Repair Shop' at the time of the retirement of the head of the shop Deputy Chief Gallion; that on January 1, 1957, he was temporarily put in charge of the shop (and has since been in charge, serving satisfactorily); that by reason of the retirement of Deputy Chief Gallion, the Commission on March 7, 1957, issued an 'Announcement of Open Examination for the Position of Superintendent of Maintenance (Fire Department)', making said examination open to all persons with the qualifications specified, regardless of whether or not they had been previously employed in the Fire Department; that the duties of Superintendent of Maintenance as specified by the Commission are substantially and actually the same as had always been required to be performed by the Deputy Chief-Repair Shop; that on August 1, 1957, the Board abolished the position and the designation of Battalion Chief-Repair Shop and has designated said position as 'Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance (Fire Department)'; that Stagge was performing the same identical duties and services and had the same responsibilities under his new title as he had under Battalion Chief-Repair Shop; that the change and designation of the titles and positions of Deputy Chief-Repair Shop and Battalion Chief Repair Shop to Superintendent of Maintenance and Assistant Superintendent of Maintenance, respectively, are mere changes of names without changes in actual duties and, therefore, the contemplated act of the Commission in scheduling an open examination to select a successor to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of the Deputy Chief constitutes an abuse of discretion and is contrary to the regular practice of the Commission, which in the forty-three years that Stagge has been employed in the Fire Department has been to make all promotions in the department on a promotional basis in accordance with the Commission's rules and provisions of the City Charter; that its failure to comply with sections 143 nad 151 of the City Charter, as to promotional examinations, is arbitrary, capricious and contrary to the best interests of the service; that the open examination proposed to be given by the Commission would afford Stagge no credit to which he is entitled under section 151 of the Charter, because of the efficiency with which he has performed his duties in the past, his seniority in service and his right of promotion by reason of his capable service over a long period of time; that there are a sufficient number of qualified men now in the service of the Baltimore City Fire Department capable of competently, efficiently and effectively performing the duties of Deputy Chief-Repair Shop, to make the holding of a promotional examination practicable; and that the holding of an open examination would be contrary to the good of the service and in violation of the provisions of the Charter.

The parties are agreed that equity is a proper forum, that the case is controlled by the applicable provisions of the City Charter and the applicable rules of the Commission, that the position involved is in the Competitive Class of the Classified Service, and that the change in titles did not amount to the creation of new positions.

The Baltimore City Charter (Flack, 1949) provides in sections 142 through 156 for the City Service Commission and sets out its powers and duties in relation to the classified service. Section 143 directs the Commission to make rules to carry out the purposes of the classified service 'and to provide for appointments and employments in all positions in the classified service hereinafter mentioned, based on merit, efficiency, character and industry * * *.' Section 144 provides for classification and reclassification of all offices and positions and directs that they shall be classified 'with reference to the examinations hereinafter provided for, as Exempt, Competitive, Non-Competitive and Labor Class * * *', and adds that 'no appointment to any such offices or positions shall be made except under and according to the rules of the Commission.' Section 146 sets out what positions shall be in the Competitive Class. Section 151 directs the Commission to provide in its rules for the keeping of a record of efficiency of each employee in the Competitive Class 'and for making promotions on the basis of merit, to be ascertained by competitive examinations, by conduct and capacity in office, and by seniority in service, and * * * that vacancies shall be filled by promotions in all cases where, in the judgment of the Commission, it shall be for the best interests of the service so to fill such vacancies.'

Rule 17 of the Commission...