State ex rel. Nelson v. Board of Public Welfare of City of Minneapolis

• Decision Date: 24 June 1921
• Docket Number: 22,295
• Citation: 183 N.W. 521,149 Minn. 322
• Parties: STATE EX REL. CARL U. NELSON v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND OTHERS
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

183 N.W. 521

149 Minn. 322

STATE EX REL. CARL U. NELSON v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WELFARE OF THE CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS AND OTHERS

No. 22,295

Supreme Court of Minnesota

June 24, 1921

Upon the relation of Carl U. Nelson the district court of Hennepin county granted its writ of certiorari directed to the Board of Public Welfare of the City of Minneapolis to review the action of that board in discharging relator from the position of inspector of foods. The matter was heard by Dickinson, J who granted respondents' motion to quash the writ. From the judgment entered quashing the writ, relator appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Municipal corporation -- discharge of employe -- Civil Service Act.

1. The civil service act, which applies to the city of Minneapolis permits the officer or board that appointed an employe to discharge him, without referring the matter to the civil service commission for a hearing, unless he has been in continuous employment for six months or more.

Discharge by Board of Public Welfare of Minneapolis.

2. The act creating the Board of Public Welfare of the city of Minneapolis authorized the board to discharge the employes of former departments, transferred to it, without a hearing, and, insofar as this act is inconsistent with the civil service act it supersedes that act.

Second discharge without a hearing, when.

3. Where an employe so discharged was subsequently appointed to a different position, he may be discharged therefrom by the board without a hearing before the civil service commission, unless he has served under such new appointment for six months or more.

Honorable discharged soldier entitled to hearing before Board of Public Welfare.

4. The relator, being an honorably discharged soldier, was entitled to a hearing before being discharged from his position, but, as this right was not given him by the civil service act, but by the act granting preference rights to honorably discharged soldiers and sailors, and that act did not designate what tribunal should hold such hearing, the duty to hold it devolved upon the board of public welfare which appointed him, and not upon the civil service commission.

Voluntary appearance waived a formal notice of hearing.

5. By voluntarily appearing before the board and informing them that he had nothing further to present, the relator waived formal notice of the hearing.

Concession at argument corrects omission in record.

6. While the return fails to show that the relator was an honorably discharged soldier, it was conceded at the argument that such was the fact.

Neil M. Cronin and Orren E. Safford, for relator.

C. D. Gould, W. G. Compton, and L. B. Byard, for respondents.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

Alleging that he had been wrongfully discharged, on August 10, 1920, by the Board of Public Welfare of the city of Minneapolis from the position of inspector of foods in the division of public health, the relator sued out a writ of certiorari from the district court to review the action of the board. On the return made to the court in obedience to the writ, the court rendered judgment affirming the action of the board as lawful and valid and discharging the writ. The relator appealed from this judgment.

The Board of Public Welfare of the city of Minneapolis was created by chapter 327, p. 342, of the Laws of 1919, and on July 1, 1919, the powers and duties theretofore exercised and performed by the department of health and by several other departments and boards of the city were transferred to, vested in, and imposed upon, this board. Among other things the act provided that: "All officers and employes of the department of health * * * shall be eligible to similar offices and positions under the board of public welfare hereby created without being required to take civil service examinations as to their qualifications therefor, and they shall continue in their respective offices or positions from the time this act goes into effect, until further action of the board." Section 6.

From the return it appears that on June 8, 1920, the committee on public health of the board of public welfare reported to the board three lists of employes in the division of public health, and as to one of these lists recommended: "That this personnel of employes carried over as employes prior to July 1st, 1919, be not certified and that the positions now occupied by them be declared vacant June 15th, 1920, and that the commissioner of health be authorized to request the civil service commission to replace them."

This list included the relator, who was named therein as inspector of milk. The recommendation of the committee was adopted by the board. The committee also recommended that the employes in this list be given a leave of absence with pay for one week from June 15, 1920, and this recommendation was also adopted by the board. About this time, the date is not given the board requested the civil service commission to certify an eligible person for appointment as inspector of foods in the division of public health, and on June 18, 1920, the commission certified to the board the name of the relator, and he was appointed to that position on June 23, 1920. On July 27, 1920, the commissioner of public health gave him a written notice that, pending the action of the board of public welfare, he was suspended without pay for absence from duty without authority and for falsification of reports, and, pursuant to the rules of the board, reported this action to the committee on public health. This committee reported to the board at its meeting of August 3, 1920, recommending that the relator be discharged. He appeared at this meeting and was informed by the chairman that the committee, after investigation, had recommended that he be permanently discharged, and was further informed that it had been made to appear that the statement in his written report of July 26, that he had been engaged during all the working hours of that day in performing the duties assigned to him, was false in that during those hours he had attended a hearing held by a committee of the city council which his duties did not require him to attend, and was further informed that the board desired to hear him in his own behalf and to give him such opportunity as he wished to present such facts and evidence as he desired before the board took action on the recommendation for his discharge. Thereupon the relator stated to the board that he had been absent from duty without leave as stated by the chairman, and that: "Said written inspection report made by him was false in that he was not wholly employed * * * on the said July 26, 1920, in and about his regular duties." He further stated that he "did not think or realize...