Title: Billings v. Civil Service Commission
Citation: 178 S.E.2d 801
Docket Number: 13007
State: west-virginia
Issuer: west-virginia Supreme Court
Date: February 2, 1971

178 S.E.2d 801 (1971) Mary Ann BILLINGS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION of West Virginia and John R. Barber, Acting Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner. No. 13007. Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia. Submitted January 14, 1971. Decided February 2, 1971. *802 Burton &amp; Burton, Walter W. Burton, Princeton, for appellant. Chauncey H. Browning, Jr., Atty. Gen., Dennis R. Vaughan, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for appellees. BROWNING, Judge: This case is a statutory appeal from a final order of the Civil Service Commission of the State of West Virginia dated August 10, 1970. The appellant, Mary Ann Billings, was employed by the West Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner as a clerk, having begun her employment on September 23, 1963. On September 12, 1969, appellant took a leave of absence for pregnancy and was absent for four weeks. When she returned to work, her division director informed her that "she would have to train someone else and she would be terminated and that the reason for this termination was political." Claiming that political discrimination became "so bad," she did not return to work after October 30, 1969. She was never given any reasons in writing for her "termination," the Commissioner taking the position that she resigned rather than having been discharged. Appellant testified that at the time she did not believe she was covered by the Civil Service System and thus did not appeal her "dismissal" within the thirty-day statutory period. Prior to all of this, but during appellant's employment, Governor Hulett C. Smith, by executive order dated January 11, 1969, placed Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner employees under the West Virginia Civil Service System. On July 14, 1969, Governor Arch A. Moore, Jr., by executive order, attempted to remove those employees from the protection of the system. On March 30, 1970, this Court, in State ex rel. Karnes v. Dadisman, W.Va., 172 S.E.2d 561 (1970), held Governor Moore's executive order to be void for reasons set forth in that opinion. On June 30, 1970, this Court, in State ex rel. Clark v. Dadisman, W.Va., 175 S.E.2d 422 (1970), held, inter alia, that "terminated" employees were entitled to reinstatement and back pay since they were never legally discharged (not having been given reasons in writing for their discharges). On July 8, 1970, the appellant herein filed for an appeal with the Civil Service Commission and was granted a hearing to be held on August 10, 1970. On that date, the hearing was held, and the commission entered the order herein complained of. This, in part, was the commission's holding: IV. DECISION We granted an appeal in this case on October 19, 1970, and, upon appellant's motion *803 to reverse, filed December 12, 1970, briefs of counsel and oral argument on January 13, 1971, the case was submitted for decision. It will be noted that the decision of the commission was based upon two points, the first being that the appeal was untimely. There is pending in this Court for decision the case of Harris v. Civil Service Commission and sixteen other cases 178 S.E.2d 842, all of which by agreement of counsel were consolidated for decision, in which the sole issue is whether there was a timely appeal to the commission. That question will be dealt with extensively in the opinion of the Court when it is handed down, and, in view of the position of the Court upon the second finding of the commission, we do not consider it necessary to discuss the issue of timely filing. In other words, the sole issue we are passing upon in this case is whether or not the employee was "discharged." Of course, if any employee under civil service resigns or "abandons" a position under such circumstances that those terms become synonymous, the commission is without authority to reinstate that employee unless the severance of the employee from his or her position was under such circumstances that it violated Code, Chapter 29, Article 6, as amended, the subject of which is civil service, and the Rules and Regulations of the Civil Service Commission. Although not raised in brief or argument by counsel for either of the parties in this case, we deem it necessary to determine what weight, if any, should be given to a finding of fact by the Civil Service Commission. Code, 29-6-13, as amended, empowers the commission to take evidence and to pass upon that evidence affirming or reversing the decision of the employing authority, therefore, in our opinion, placing it certainly in the position of an administrative agency whose finding of fact will not be reversed by this Court unless clearly wrong. In this regard, compare West Virginia's Administrative Procedures Act, Chapter 29A, and in particular Article 5, Section 4: And, as stated in Guine v. Civil Service Commission, 149 W.Va. 461, 141 S.E.2d 364 (1965): Conversely, this Court has recognized that an order of the Public Service Commission "based upon evidence to support it is not subject to judicial interference upon review by this Court." Atlantic Greyhound Corp. v. Public Service Commission, 132 W.Va. 650, 54 S.E.2d 169 (1949). See also, United Fuel Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 143 W.Va. 33, 99 S.E.2d 1 (1957); Walk v. State Compensation Commissioner, 134 W. Va. 223, 58 S.E.2d 791 (1950); Town of Harrisville v. Public Service Commission, 103 W.Va. 526, 138 S.E. 99 (1927); City of Huntington v. Public Service Commission, 101 W.Va. 378, 133 S.E. 144 (1926); Pittsburgh &amp; West Virginia Gas Co. v. Public Service Commission, 101 W.Va. 63, 132 S.E. 497 (1926). Upon this authority, we now hold specifically that this Court will not *804 reverse a finding of fact by the Civil Service Commission unless it is contrary to the evidence or is based upon a mistake of law. In other words, the finding must be clearly wrong to warrant our "judicial interference." In appraising the evidence in this case, we must consider the situation that prevailed at the time the appellant ceased to be an employee of the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner. The present Governor had entered his order removing the employees from that department from civil service protection, and it was therefore assumed by the commissioner and employees of the commissioner, as well as others perhaps, that the executive order of the present Governor was valid. There is no conflict in the evidence, the only witness testifying being Mary Ann Billings, the appellant. It is true that at the end of the hearing an affidavit was submitted by the person who at that time was Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner to the effect that the records of that department showed that Mrs. Billings had "resigned." However, that, of course, was not conclusive and there was no evidence to contradict the evidence of the appellant that she never at any time submitted a formal resignation nor was she at any time discharged. The real issue then is whether or not she was subject to such discrimination or pressure that she was justified in severing her relationship with the department. Perhaps this opinion would not serve its purpose if there was not some brief quotation from the uncontradicted evidence of Mrs. Billings. It is the view of this Court considering all of the circumstances that have heretofore been related and particularly the statement of Mr. Conaty, the only person who had the authority to discharge her, assuming that she was not under civil service, what transpired between her and some of the members of the opposing party who had recently begun work for the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner, their conduct in holding meetings and not inviting her and even the statement by some minor official of the department that he would fire her in a minute if he could even though he had no such authority, that the commission was justified in holding that appellant voluntarily left her employment with the Alcohol Beverage Control Commissioner and was not discharged. Furthermore, the commission was not clearly wrong in holding, upon the facts and considering only her testimony, that the appellant was not entitled to be reinstated to her former position and be paid her salary from the day she ceased her employment. Therefore, the ruling of the commission is affirmed. Affirmed.