State Dept. of Civil Service v. Clark, A--122

• Decision Date: 03 May 1954
• Docket Number: No. A--122,A--122
• Citation: 104 A.2d 685,15 N.J. 334
• Parties: STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE et al. v. CLARK et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 334

15 N.J. 334

104 A.2d 685

STATE DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE et al. v. CLARK et al.

No. A--122.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued March 29, 1954.

Decided May 3, 1954.

Frederick J. Gassert, Newark, argued the cause for appellants.

Joseph Lanigan, Deputy Atty. Gen., argued the cause for respondent State of New Jersey Department of Civil Service (Grover C. Richman, Jr., Atty. Gen. of New Jersey).

Reynier J. Wortendyke, Jr., Newark, argued the cause for intervening respondents Joseph M. Nealon and others.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

WACHENFELD, J.

The query here is whether the adoption of the Civil Service Law by a referendum in the County of Hudson made the law applicable to the Boulevard Commission of Hudson County and its employees.

Chapter 106 of the Laws of 1898, now R.S. 27:17--2 et seq., N.J.S.A., created boulevard commissions in counties having county boulevards. When it was passed, the County of Hudson had such a road and hence the statute had the effect of creating the Boulevard Commissioners of the County of Hudson, who are the defendants in this cause.

On January 1, 1912 the Civil Service Law became applicable to the County of Hudson, having been adopted by the voters of the county at the general election in 1911 pursuant to provisions of chapter 156 of the Laws of 1908 (as amended, now R.S. 11:20--1 et seq., N.J.S.A.).

This law is now embodied in Title 11 of the current Revised Statutes and under chapter 20 thereof the manner in which the provisions of the Civil Service Law may become effective in counties, municipalities or school districts is prescribed, providing for its adoption in any such subdivisions by referendum at a general or municipal election.

At the time the Civil Service Law was adopted by referendum, the then members of the commission recognized that it applied to them and their employees and they accordingly complied with the law and submitted their regular payroll to the Civil Service Commission for certification. From 1898 until 1952 the governing body of the County of Hudson, the board of chosen freeholders, considered the boulevard commission as a board or body of the county government and treated its annual request for funds in the same manner as those of other county agencies. It scrutinized the requests and approved, disapproved or reduced them as it saw fit.

In 1952 the board of chosen freeholders, relying upon R.S. 27:17--7, N.J.S.A. reduced the requested funds of the boulevard commission and the issue arose as to whether or not the board had a right so to do. We passed upon the issue so framed in Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, 9 N.J. 477, 89 A.2d 13 (1952), and agreed with the boulevard commission, holding it was 'an independent political corporation,' and the financial obligation upon the county was mandatory.

Stimulated by this decision and admittedly basing its inspiration entirely upon the adjudication so made, the commission came to a new and different conclusion and decided that the 1911 adoption of civil service for Hudson County was not new applicable. Accordingly, in January 1953 it failed and refused to submit its regular payroll to the Civil Service Commission for certification. The Department of Civil Service thereupon instituted these proceedings in lieu of prerogative writ under Rule 3:81 to compel the submission of the names of the boulevard's employees within the classified service and the wages and compensation to be paid to each at the regular pay intervals from January 16, 1953 agreeable to the provisions of R.S. 11:22--20, N.J.S.A.

After the filing of the complaint, officers of Local 17 of the New Jersey State Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, of which the police employees of the Boulevard Commissioners of the County of Hudson are members, were permitted to intervene as coplaintiffs by order of the court. The plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and the court below granted the motion, thus determining that the adoption of civil service for the county applied to the commission. From the judgment so rendered the commission appeals, and we certified the cause by our own motion.

The appellants assert there could be no impact of the provisions of the Civil Service Law upon a county, municipality or school district except through a referendum as provided in Chapter 20 of Title 11, but this facts is not here disputed. The Civil Service Law, it is said, cannot apply to 'authorities' which are 'independent bodies corporate and politic' without a specific enactment of the Legislature, reliance being placed upon State Dept. of Civil Service v. Parking Authority of City of Trenton, 27 N.J.Super. 284, 99 A.2d 177 (Law Div.1953), affirmed 29 N.J.Super. 335, 102 A.2d 669 (App.Div.1954).

The argument presented is narrowed to a determination of the nature of the relationship between the boulevard commission and the County of Hudson. Admittedly, if the commission was merely an agency of the county as the court below held, the 1911 referendum included in its scope the commission and its employees; but if it is independent of the county, it is claimed the referendum had no effect upon it.

This court, through the opinion of the Chief Justice in Nolan v. Fitzpatrick, supra (9 N.J. 477, 89 A.2d 14), amongst other things held:

'The three boulevard commissioners, who are elected at large in the county for three year terms, R.S. 27:17--2, N.J.S.A., are given the exclusive right with respect to the maintenance, repair and control of 'a county road,' R.S. 27:17--5, N.J.S.A. (see also R.S. 27:17--15, N.J.S.A.), in this case the Hudson Boulevard running some 20 miles north and south throughout the county. The statute vesting these exclusive powers in the boulevard commissioners further gave them 'the use and possession of all property and plant of the county used for maintaining, lighting and repairing such roads,' R.S. 27:17--8, N.J.S.A., as well as the exclusive right to pass ordinances for the regulation and use of the road, R.S. 27:17--5, N.J.S.A. * * *

'* * * The Legislature where it desires to confide discretion to a board of chosen freeholders has experienced no difficulty in finding apt language to do so. Where, as here, it has not only employed mandatory language with respect to appropriations but by the entire statutory scheme of relations between the boulevard commissioners and the board of chosen freeholders has indicated an intent to free the boulevard commissioners from responsibility to the board of chosen free holders, it is not for us to question the wisdom of the legislative intent either as to the method of appropriating funds to the boulevard commissioners or the very existence of the boulevard commissioners as an independent political corporation.'

We decided merely that the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the County of Hudson, in a proceeding of this king, had to appropriate forthwith the full amount requisitioned by the boulevard commissioners notwithstanding the board's opinion as to the amount, necessity or propriety of the projected expenditures of the commission.

We conceive no sweep in the Nolan case sufficiently broad to support the appellants' conclusion that they are relieved from the obligation of Title 11, nor do we think it important, as urged, whether there is in law a distinction...