State ex rel. Pedrolie v. Kirby

• Decision Date: 25 July 1942
• Docket Number: 37927
• Parties: State of Missouri at the relation of Sebastian Pedrolie, William E. Hilsman and Florence A. Spotts, Relators, v. Daniel N. Kirby, Luther Ely Smith and Paul J. Kaveney, Members of and Constituting the Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

163 S.W.2d 964

349 Mo. 1010

State of Missouri at the relation of Sebastian Pedrolie, William E. Hilsman and Florence A. Spotts, Relators, v. Daniel N. Kirby, Luther Ely Smith and Paul J. Kaveney, Members of and Constituting the Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis

No. 37927

Supreme Court of Missouri

July 25, 1942

Alternate writ modified and made peremptory.

E H. Wayman for relators.

(1) The charter amendment adopted on September 16, 1941, became effective immediately, so far as concerned the relators' right to appeal to the Civil Service Commission and the Commission's duty to hear said appeals. Section Thirty of the Amendment; State v. Kansas City, 276 S.W. 389; Kansas City v. Stegmiller, 151 Mo. 189, l. c. 207; 43 C. J. 165. (2) Immediately upon the appointment of the Civil Service Commission, it became and was its duty to consider and determine the appeals of the relators. Section Seven (d) of the Amendment. And if the Commission finds that the relators were discharged because of their political opinions, affiliations or service, to order the reinstatement of the relators without loss of pay. Section Seven (g) of the Amendment.

Joseph F. Holland, City Counselor, George L. Stemmler Oliver Senti and Albert Miller, Associate City Counselors of St. Louis, and Charles P. Williams for respondents.

(1) The provisions of the Charter Amendment show that it was not intended to be immediately operative. Sec. 13; Sec. 3 (a); Sec. 3 (1) and (t). (2) As leading to same conclusion. Sec. 9 (i); Sec. 3 (v); Sec. 3 (k). (3) Most convincing are the provisions of Section 30. The rule of harmonizing statutes stated. 59 C. J., p. 1003; State ex rel. v. Sewer District, 338 Mo. l. c. 672. The last in order prevails where conflict. State ex rel. v. Gideon, 273 Mo. l. c. 87. The necessary interpretation of Section 30. (4) The rights claimed by relators are hopelessly at war with the Amendment. Sec. 30; Sec. 9 (i); Sec. 3 (v); Sec. 3 (k).

Douglas, J. All concur, except Gantt, J., not sitting.

OPINION

DOUGLAS

This is an original proceeding in mandamus to compel respondents, as members of the newly created Civil Service Commission of the City of St. Louis, to entertain jurisdiction and determine the appeals of relators from their discharge as employees in the classified service of the city.

The city adopted a new charter in 1914. This charter included a series of provisions undertaking to group employment under the city into classified and unclassified service. It provided a form of qualified civil service with respect to the classified branch. These provisions were included in Article XVIII of the charter under the heading "Efficiency Board."

A proposal to amend that charter by the substitution of a new Article XVIII was submitted to and adopted by the people of St. Louis at an election held September 16, 1941. The purpose of this amendment as therein stated was "to provide a modern and comprehensive system of personnel administration for the city, whereby economy and effectiveness in the personal services rendered to the city, and fairness and equity to the employees and tax-payers of the city, alike, may be promoted."

The amendment contains safeguards designed to insure employment and continuity of service on the grounds of merit and fitness rather than other considerations. One of them forbids discrimination or discharge because of political opinions, affiliations or service. The commission is authorized to consider appeals by employees and to order the reinstatement of any employee, without loss of pay, who has been discharged for political reasons. Furthermore, employees in the classified service at the time the amendment took effect automatically came under its provisions. The amendment expressly struck out all the provisions of the old Article XVIII subject to the temporary exception we discuss presently.

Relators allege they were employees in the classified service of the city at the time the amendment was adopted and were thereafter discharged because of political considerations. They appealed to the commission but it refused to consider their appeals. They then instituted this proceeding.

The commission admits it has refused to entertain said appeals and to consider and determine the cases of relators. It asserts it lacks jurisdiction, at this time, to consider the appeals because the provisions of the amendment giving it authority to do so are not yet in full force and effect. For support it relies on the exception in Section 30 which provides a temporary period not to exceed one year for the performance of certain duties necessary for full compliance with the terms of the amendment.

Section 30 provides: "Time of Effect. -- This amendment shall take effect immediately, except that payrolls may be certified and payments be made thereon, under the provisions of previously existing Charter provisions, and ordinances and rules, applicable thereto, during such temporary period not to exceed one year as is necessary, in the opinion of the Civil Service Commission, to provide for the Director of Personnel, the rules, the classification and compensation plans, the ordinances, the allocation of the existing positions to their appropriate classes and the fixing of the rates of compensation thereunder, and the forms and procedures, necessary for full compliance with the provisions of this Article."

It is our opinion that this section does not sustain the commission's position.

Interwoven in the various terms of the amendment are provisions relating to the audit and certification of payrolls and payments thereunder. There is, for instance, a prohibition against paying a person until his position has been classified and allocated by the director. There being no director as yet no salary could be paid. Necessity requires that payrolls be met promptly. It was to cover such a situation that the exception was made so as to permit salary payments under the provisions of the old system. We find nothing in the exception which applies to the matter in issue here.

The purpose and spirit of the law would be violated and ignored if the employees would be deprived of their right to relief from improper discrimination which is given them by the amendment. It is true that the old article prohibited such discrimination but the relief was not equal. It merely permitted replacing the name of a person on the eligible list if he had been wrongfully discharged. The efficiency board was given no authority to grant the broader relief,...