Opinion ID: 1734666
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Patrolman

Text: Nature of Work: This is a general duty police work in protecting life and property and enforcing laws and ordinances. Employees of this class are responsible for maintaining law and order, for preventing crimes, and for protecting life and property within the city. Work methods are developed and demonstrated in detail by superior officers. While much of the work is of a routine nature, incumbents must be able to exercise sound and independent judgment in emergency situations where danger to life or property may be involved. All assignments involve responsibility for recognizing the social importance of police functions, for tactful and courteous treatment of the public, and conscientious and efficient performance of duties without immediate supervision. Work is supervised by superior officers through assignment of duties, personal inspections, and review of daily reports. In the Hahn case it was adjudged that Clarence J. Carr was entitled to the civil service classification of Clerk in the Police Department and that Mrs. George L. Kirkpatrick was entitled to the classification of Switchboard Operator in the Police Department. These are the positions such parties hold under the classification ordinance of the City of San Antonio at the present time. Quite obviously, although both were policemen under the statutory definition contained in Article 1269m, § 2, prior to the 1957 amendment, neither was a patrolman in the Police Department. To paraphrase what was said in the Handley case, a classified clerk or switchboard operator is not a classified patrolman and the base pay for a patrolman is not necessarily the base pay for clerk or a switchboard operator. We are unable to agree with the Court of Civil Appeals that the holding in the Hahn case establishes the proposition that respondents were either patrolmen in the Police Department or entitled to the same rate of pay as patrolmen in the Police Department. Rather, we think, the matter of rate of pay is determined by the holdings of the Handley case. We see no difference between the positions of these respondents and the appellees in the Handley case in this respect. When closely analyzed, it will be found that there is but one legal holding made by the Court of Civil Appeals in City of San Antonio v. Hahn, 274 S.W.2d 162, 164, wr. ref., n. r. e., which is expressed in the following excerpt from the opinion, viz.: We believe that the [trial] court was correct in holding that the several plaintiffs (named in the judgment) [including Carr and Mrs. Kirkpatrick] are members of the San Antonio Police Department and entitled to the benefits of the Civil Service Act, and as such are entitled to the payment of the minimum salary and were entitled to judgment. At the time of the Hahn case, so far as ordinance action was concerned, the lowest job classification in the Police Department was that of patrolman. The amount of recovery awarded to the plaintiffs in the Hahn case was based upon a stipulation. This is apparent from the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals. The stipulation relating to Carr was as follows: That as a member of the Police Department of said City, Plaintiff Carr was paid a salary of $150.00 per month from March 3, 1951 to July 31, 1951; that under the minimum salary laws of the State of Texas, applicable to policemen in the City of San Antonio, the minimum salary to which said Plaintiff Carr was entitled, provided he comes within the provisions of the law, was $255.00 per month from March 3, 1951 to June 1, 1951; $265.00 per month from June 1, 1951 to February 11, 1953; and $295.00 per month from February 1, 1953 to August 1, 1953; and $312.00 per month from August 1, 1953 to the present time, including longevity pay of $10.00 per month for each five years of service. A similar stipulation was made with reference to Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Although the classification of patrolmen is not mentioned in either stipulation, we take it that the figures mentioned therein were taken from the various ordinances setting the rate of pay applicable to patrolmen in the Police Department. We think the purpose of this stipulation was to enable the court to fix the amount of money recoverable by plaintiffs in the Hahn case in the event the court should hold that they were policemen under the Civil Service Act. In other words, it was made for the purposes of the suit then pending and did not operate to fix the civil service status of Carr and Mrs. Kirkpatrick in the future as being patrolmen nor as belonging to the same classification as patrolmen. If we say that because of this stipulation, or for any other reason, Carr and Mrs. Kirkpatrick were entitled to the same pay as patrolmen for a period of time ending in March of 1954, it would not necessarily follow that they were entitled to a patrolman's pay for the period covered by the present suit. Respondents are suing for alleged back pay from and after August 22, 1957. While the city ordinance of that date was invalid to the extent that it attempted to transfer respondents from the Police Department to the Administrative Pool of the Personnel Department, as held in the Handley case, it was nevertheless effective to set the salary or wage for clerks and switchboard operators at the minimum permitted by statute. This exercise of authority by the City Council was within the powers vested in the City Council by law and hence was valid and enforceable. City of San Antonio v. Whitten, Tex.Sup., 338 S.W.2d 119, cf. City of San Antonio v. Handley, Tex.Civ.App., 308 S.W.2d 608, wr. ref. While at one time clerk and switchboard operators may have been compensated at the same rate of pay as patrolmen, they did not belong to the same civil service classification. The City Council could reduce the salaries of clerks and switchboard operators without reducing the pay of patrolmen. Such action is not forbidden by the terms of Article 1269m, § 8 which provides that, all persons in each classification shall be paid the same salary   . Although the trial court overruled the city's motion for summary judgment, that action is not urged as error here. Not being in position to render summary judgment for the city, the cause will be remanded to the trial court. The judgments of the trial court and the Court of Civil Appeals are reversed and the cause remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.