State ex rel. Baranowski v. Koszewski
| Decision Date | 18 November 1947 |
| Citation | 29 N.W.2d 764,251 Wis. 383 |
| Parties | STATE ex rel. BARANOWSKI v. KOSZEWSKI et al. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a Judgment of the Circuit Court for Milwaukee County; Walter Schinz, Judge.
Certiorari proceeding by the State on the relation of Hattie Baranowski, against Sylvester W. Koszewski and others, as the Civil Service Commission of Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and another to review an order of the commission discharging relatrix as deputy sheriff. From a judgment for relatrix, the defendants appeal.-[By Editorial Staff.]
Judgment affirmed.
Certiorari issued out of the circuit court to review an order of the Milwaukee county civil service commission discharging Hattie Baranowski as deputy sheriff. The action was commenced on July 11, 1947, and upon trial to the court the judgment was entered August 4, 1947. Sylvester W. Koszewski, William H. Ward, Mrs. J. William Gross, Herbert A. Braun and Thomas Kattnig, as the civil service commission of Milwaukee county, Wisconsin, and David V. Jennings, as chief examiner of said commission appeal. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.
William J. McCauley, Dist. Atty., and Oliver L. O'Boyle, Corp. Counsel, both of Milwaukee, for appellants.
Werner J. Trimborn, of Milwaukee, for respondent Baranowski.
Gold & McCann, of Milwaukee, for respondent Hanley.
Hattie Baranowski, sixty-one years of age, was employed by Milwaukee county in 1914 as a matron in Milwaukee county jail, a position not under civil service. In 1922 she was appointed deputy sheriff under civil service and has since served continuously in that capacity. On June 8, 1946 pursuant to a rule of the Milwaukee county civil service commission the submittedto a physical examination. The medical findings were that she weighed 258 pounds, had 20/20 vision in the left eye and 20/70 vision in the right eye, not satisfactorily corrected, blood pressure of 180 systolic and 100 diastolic and that she was physically disqualified by reason of high blood pressure and poor vision to discharge her duties. The employe appealed to the medical review board which found her blood pressure to be 210 systolic and 100 diastolic. The findings of the original examiner were affirmed. Thereupon the Milwaukee county civil service commission requested George M. Hanley, sheriff of Milwaukee county, employe's superior officer, to retire her on pension because of physical unfitness and advising him that unless he did so the commission would refuse to approve any further payroll vouchers. On June 18, 1947 the sheriff refused to file charges and took the position that while the employe might not be able to pass a physical examination, she was actually doing her work with efficiency and was physically able to do so. Thereafter, on June 20, 1947 charges were filed by David V. Jennings, chief examiner of the Milwaukee county civil service commission, alleging physical infirmity rendering her unfit to perform her duties. There was a hearing at which there was introduced without objection all of the medical reports relative to the employe and in addition, a statement of her personal physician finding her blood pressure as of June 30, 1947 to be 222 systolic and 140 diastolic. There was evidence by one of the doctors of the medical review board that she was physically disqualified because the discharge of her duties subjected her to physical strain which endangered her health, as well as her life. The commission sustained the charges and directed a separation of employe from classified service of Milwaukee county, as well as her discharge charge as a deputy sheriff as of the date of her suspension.
The trial court was of the view that under chapter 16 no one but the appointing power, namely the sheriff of Milwaukee county, could legally prefer charges against respondent and that the civil service commission could not by rule legally authorize the filing of such charges by the chief examiner. It was further found that there was no credible evidence in the record of the present physical unfitness of the employe to perform her duties.
We shall first deal with the jurisdictional question. Sec. 16.38 Stats. (applicable to Milwaukee county) under the head of ‘Demotion: dismissal; procedure’ provides that whenever a person possessing appointing power in the county believes that an officer or employe in the classified service in his department has acted in such a manner as to show him to be incompetent or to have merited suspension, demotion or dismissal, he shall report in writing to the civil service commission setting forth specifically his complaint, and may at the same time suspend such officer or employe pending a hearing of said charges.
Sec. 16.38 then proceeds with directions for the fixing of a time and place of hearing and for the hearing itself.
Sec. 16.42(1) prescribes that no factor other than the fitness of the person to perform the duties of the position in which he is acting shall affect the determination of the suspension and discharge.
Sec. 16.32(1) provides that the civil service commission shall make ‘such rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of sections 16.31 to 16.44, inclusive, as in their judgment shall be adapted to secure the best service for the county in each department affected by said sections, and as shall tend to promote expedition and speed the elimination of all unnecessary formalities in making appointments.’
Shortly after its creation the civil service commission of Milwaukee county enacted a rule that such charges as are specified in sec. 16.38 may likewise be filed by a superior officer or by a chief executive officer of a department, board or institution, or by the chief examiner of the civil service commission where a department head or appointing authority refuses or neglects to file such charges and finally by any citizen when in the judgment of the commission the facts alleged under oath by such citizen and supported by the affidavit of one or more citizens would, if charged and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Josam Mfg. Co. v. State Bd. of Health
...the framework of the statute creating the agency. A rule must be in accord with the statutory policy, State ex rel. Baranowski v. Koszewski (1947), 251 Wis. 383, 29 N.W.2d 764, said policy in the present case being expressed in sec. 145.01(1)(e), Sec. H 62.07(4), 2 Wis.Admin. Code, permits ......
-
Courtney v. Courtney
... ... Edward Courtney has no other property in this state, and he himself has not come within the jurisdiction of the court.Sec ... ...
-
Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Service Commission
...Telephone, Inc. v. Public Service Commission, 56 Wis.2d 780, 786, 202 N.W.2d 907, 910 (1973). See also State ex rel. Baranowski v. Koszewski, 251 Wis. 383, 386, 387, 29 N.W.2d 764 (1947).6 Merkley v. Schramm, 31 Wis.2d 134, 138, 142 N.W.2d 173 (1966); Kamuchey v. Trzesniewski, 8 Wis.2d 94, ......
-
Beloit Corp. v. State, Labor and Industry Review Com'n, 88-1885
...within the framework of the statute creating it and must accord with the policy of such statute. State ex rel. Baranowski v. Koszewski, 251 Wis. 383, 386-87, 29 N.W.2d 764, 766 (1947). Beloit Corporation contends that Wis.Adm.Code, sec. Ind 80.49 would have been satisfied if Anderson had be......