Opinion ID: 1725021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: constitutionality of acts 55 and 57

Text: The Commission's position on constitutionality may be summarized as follows: (1) Article XIV, Sec. 15(I) (6) and (c) invest the Commission with exclusive authority to adopt rules having the force of law, including rules fixing compensation and establishing uniform pay plans, and amendments thereof governing all employees in the City Classified Service. The Commission concedes that pay plans fixed by it become effective only upon approval by the governing body of the City, but argues that where City approval of such a plan has been obtained, the plan becomes binding and effective and cannot thereafter be changed by either the City or the legislature without approval of the changes by the Commission; (2) Forbes, above, and Firefighters II, above, represent diametrically opposing interpretations of the pertinent constitutional provisions; (3) Forbes represents the correct interpretation, and Article XIV, Sec. 15(I) (6) and (c) confers upon the Commission precisely the same authority vested in the State Civil Service Commission; (4) Firefighters II represents an erroneous interpretation of the pertinent constitutional provision based on the holding in Firefighters I, which itself was erroneous; (5) Firefighters III perpetuates the error committed in Firefighters II, and (6) Firefighters II and III should be overruled, and Acts 55 and 57 declared unconstitutional. The Commission maintans its authority with respect to both hours of employment and pay plans includes the power to fix, adopt and establish plans that are binding upon the City. On this basis, it is argued that Firefighters I erroneously held that, as regards work hours, the authority of the Commission is limited to recommendation only. It is suggested that the error in Firefighters I resulted from the court applying the provisions of Section (I) (6) and (7) (which mentions recommendation), without reference to Section 15(I) (c) which confers authority to adopt and enforce rules fixing rates of compensation and uniform pay plans. Next, the Commission argues that the error in Firefighters I respecting hours of employment was continued and extended in Firefighters II, which, relying on Firefighters I, held that, with respect to pay plans, the authority of the Commission is limited to recommendation. According to the Commission, the error was perpetuated and compounded by Firefighters III, in which this court determined that Firefighters II represents a final determination binding on the City. The Commission next points out that subsequent to Firefighters II, this Court decided Forbes, above, which reached a determination contrary to Firefighters I and II on the question of whether the authority of the Commission is limited to recommendation in regard to pay plans. Forbes involved a suit by the Louisiana Civil Service League seeking to declare unconstitutional Act 33 of 1970, which provided a minimum pay scale for certain members of the Department of Public Safety, namely, State Troopers. The trial court held the act invalid in violation of Article XIV, Sec. 15(I) (c), which vests in the State Civil Service System authority to fix pay plans for employees in the State Classified System. This court affirmed. In effect the Commission argues that Forbes is applicable here because Section 15 applies equally to the State Civil Service Commission and the Commission by virtue of the following language contained in the opening sentence of Section 15(I): There is vested in the State Civil Service Commission and in the appropriate City Civil Service Commissions for the several cities respectively the authority and power    (Emphasis by the Court.) The Commission argues that Section 15(I) makes no distinction between the State and City Commissions with respect to the authority to fix wages conferred by Section 15(I)(c), and that Firefighters I and II erred in holding to the contrary. Firemen maintain the Commission's reliance upon Forbes is misplaced because Forbes held that Firefighters II was inapplicable in Forbes because Forbes found that ultimate authority for pay raises for state employees rests in the State Commission whereas Firefighters II held final authority for pay plans for City employees rested in the City. Firemen argue that Firefighters II is further distinguishable from Forbes in that the former held Acts 55 and 57 are supplemental and do not contravene Section 15 (P)(6), whereas Forbes held Act 33 of 1970 is not supplemental and in violation of Section 15(P)(6). It is Firemen's position that the authority of the Commission in matters of pay is purely that of recommendation. This argument is based first on the holding in Firefighters II. Next, it is predicated on the ground that the language of Section 15(I)(6) and (7) itself conveys to the Commission only the power to recommend, and Section (6) expressly provides pay and hours of work plans do not become effective until approved by the City governing authority. Firemen also suggest that Acts 55 and 57 do not violate Section 15 because Section 15(P)(6) continues in effect all existing laws relative to State and City Civil Service, and reserves to the legislature authority to amend or repeal such laws and adopt amendments or new laws which are supplementary and do not conflict with Section 15. It is contended that Acts 55 and 57 are supplementary laws not in conflict with Section 15, consequently, they are valid. Lastly, Firemen argue that Acts 55 and 57 do not conflict with Section 22 (The New Orleans Home Rule Charter) because said acts are general laws, and Section 22 expressly bars the City from exercising any authority contrary to a general state law. We find the Commission's position well taken. We agree that Section 15 vests the Commission with the same authority regarding pay schedules for City Classified Employees as it does the State Civil Service Commission with regard to pay schedules for State Classified Employees. We are also of the view that Forbes correctly held no pay plan can be approved by the State contrary to one established by the State Civil Service Commission, notwithstanding such a plan does not become effective for the State until approved by the Governor. That the Governor must approve a State plan, and the City approve a City plan before either can become effective, does not diminish or detract from the authority of the State or City Commission to adopt and enforce such plans. Neither does it mean that either the State or City can implement such a plan contrary to one recommended and established by the State or City Commission. Where such plans have been established, as is the case here, neither the State nor City can approve or implement a contradictory schedule. The patent purpose of Section 15 is to insure uniform treatment of all similarly classified employees in the State and municipal civil service systems provided for therein. To avoid discrimination and favoritism, to promote efficiency of governmental operation, and to encourage promotion based on merit, the electorate, by adoption of Section 15, has placed certain aspects of State and municipal classified employment beyond the pale of state and local governmental control. Insofar as it relates to the case at hand, our review of Firefighters I discloses the decision merely held that where the Commission had not recommended an hours of work schedule, the City was free to adopt one on its own. With this determination, we agree. We note dicta in Firefighters I to the effect that the City must approve a work schedule recommended and adopted by the Commission. We deem this holding a correct interpretation of Section 15. Firefighters II involved three suits by firemen against the City Council, namely: (1) an action to compel implementation of Act 57 of 1968 ordering increased vacations with pay for firemen; (2) a suit to mandamus the City to appropriate funds to implement Act 55 relative to minimum salaries of firemen, and (3) an action to force the City to effectuate the minimum salary schedule for firemen provided by Act 55. The City plead unconstitutionality of Acts 55 and 57 on the same grounds urged here. Relying on Firefighters I, the Court of Appeal in Firefighters II held the Commission's authority to fix pay schedules was the same as that pertaining to work hours, namely, limited to recommendation only, the final authority in this regard resting in the City Council. On this basis, Firefighters II mandated the City to implement Acts 55 and 57. Firefighters II distinguished Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans v. Barnett, La.App., 225 So.2d 381, which involved validity of a pay plan adopted by plaintiff Board for the members of its department alone where the City Council failed to approve a plan submitted by the Commission for all City Classified Employees. After the Sewerage and Water Board adopted the plan for its employees, the City approved said plan. Barnett held a plan adopted by one department with City Council approval was invalid in violation of Section 15, which prohibits discrimination against similarly classified employees. Firefighters II distinguished Barnett on the ground that in Firefighters II, all members of the same class, namely, firemen, would benefit equally. We refused writs in Firefighters II. Firefighters III was a proceeding by Firemen to have the City adjudged in contempt for failure to implement the minimum pay and vacation schedule for firemen held valid in Firefighters II. As regards the suit for vacation pay, the trial court held the City was not in contempt. In the suit involving longevity and minimum salaries, the trial court held the City was in contempt, but not willfully so. All parties appealed. On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment holding the City free of contempt in the suit involving vacations. The judgment holding the City in contempt in the longevity and minimum salary action was reversed on the ground that willful disobedience is an essential element of contempt without which there can be no conviction of a constructive contempt. The Court of Appeal remanded the longevity and minimum salary cases to the trial court for the setting of a reasonable time in which the City could comply or face contempt proceedings. All parties applied for writs to this court. Firefighters III is germane herein only in that it held Firefighters II was final as to the parties therein (Firemen and City) on the basis of res judicata. Having reconsidered Firefighters I, II and III, we conclude these decisions are erroneous insofar as they might have held or intimated that the authority of the Commission is limited to the power of recommendation in matters involving pay plans and the working hours of municipal civil service employees. We find that the Commission is vested with power and authority to adopt, fix, establish and enforce pay plans governing wages and working hours of all City Civil Service Employees, which plans, when duly adopted by the Commission, are binding upon the City. To the extent that Firefighters I, II and III may have held or intimated the contrary, said decisions are hereby overruled. We find further consideration of Forbes, above, to be in order. In Forbes, we declared unconstitutional Act 33 of 1970, which provided minimum salaries for a specific class of State Classified Employees, namely, State Troopers. The Civil Service League sued to have the Act declared invalid in contravention of Article XIV, Sec. 15, in that it contravened the authority of the State Commission to fix the pay of all State Classified Employees, including State Troopers. It was urged in Forbes, above, that Act 33 of 1970 was supplementary in nature, and therefore valid pursuant to Section 15(P)(6). We rejected this contention on the ground that the statute was not supplementary in nature, but in direct conflict with the ultimate authority vested in the State Commission to fix salaries of Classified State Employees pursuant to Section 15(I) (c). In Forbes, above, we distinguished Firefighters II on the ground that, as regards state employees, the authority of the State Commission to fix salaries is ultimate, whereas Firefighters II held ultimate authority with regard to the pay of City employees rested in the City Council. In making this distinction in Forbes, we find we were in error. To the extent of said distinction, Forbes is hereby overruled. Regarding Firemen's contention that Acts 55 and 57 are supplementary in nature, we now find no basic difference or distinction between Act 33 of 1970 and Acts 55 and 57 of the Extra Session of 1968. Acts 33 and 55 both attempt to establish a pay plan for employees of a classified system contrary to exclusive authority granted to the State Commission in the first instance, and the City Commission in the latter. Act 57 establishes a vacation plan for a select group of employees of the City Civil Service System in contravention of the exclusive authority vested in the City Commission in that particular area. As we held in Forbes with regard to Act 33 of 1970, we find that Acts 55 and 57 exceed the authority retained by the legislature under Section 15(P)(6). Based on the language in Section 15, Firemen contend the Commission's power extends to recommendation only because: (1) Section (I)(c) provides that a pay plan for the City shall become effective only on approval of the City governing body; (2) Section (I) (6) does not confer upon the Commission authority to fix hours of work, but merely to recommend, and (3) Section (I)(c) provides that, in the adoption of a pay plan for State Classified Employees, difference in pay in private business and industry and the scarcity of applicants in different areas of the state may be considered in fixing different pay in different areas, but no such authority is granted City Commissions. We find no merit in any of these arguments. We held in Forbes that, with regard to State Employees, the authority of the State Commission is ultimate despite the need for approval by the Governor. Section 15 confers the same power and authority on the City Commission. Insofar as Section 15 (I) (6) relates to hours of employment, we note that said provision recites: establishing and recommending hours of work, and requires approval of the Governor as regards a state plan and approval of the city governing authority with respect to a city plan. As hereinabove noted, Section 15 must be interpreted in the light of all its provisions. Insofar as Section 15 is concerned, we find that it vests in the State and City Commissions all powers not reserved to the legislature pursuant to Section 15(P) (6). Construed with the vesting authority contained in the opening sentence of Section 15 (I), subparagraph (6) thereof vests the Commission with power to fix binding pay plans from which the City may not deviate. That Section (I)(c) allows the State Commission to consider differences in pay in private business and industry and other factors which may vary in different parts of the state, in fixing salaries of State Classified Employees, is a matter of no operative effect in this instance. This provision merely recognizes that regional problems may exist in different parts of the state depending upon varying economic circumstances. An individual municipality does not face such problems. Firemen's last contention on constitutionality is that Acts 55 and 57 are general laws, and therefore binding on the City pursuant to the Article XIV, Section 22, provision that the City shall not exercise any power inconsistent with general law. In part, this argument is based on an analysis of general statutes dealing with firemen and policemen, (particularly firemen), which are said to indicate legislative intent to prefer employees in these categories. The Commission urges that Section 15(I) (6) and (c) vests exclusive authority in the Commission as regards to pay and work hours of City Classified Employees, and that these provisions are of equal dignity with Article XIV, Sec. 22. It thus appears there is a need to reconcile these provisions. Constitutional provisions are interpreted by the same rules as are other laws. Roberts v. City of Baton Rouge, 236 La. 521, 108 So.2d 111. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between different sections of the Constitution, they should be construed in such manner as to allow each to stand and be given effect, if possible. Meyers v. Flournoy, 209 La. 812, 25 So.2d 601. Constitutional provisions should be so construed as to give effect to the purpose indicated by a fair interpretation of the language used. State ex rel. Fernandez v. Feucht, 182 La. 134, 161 So. 179. Positions of articles and related articles in the Constitution, their source and history and development or changes in application of the articles are important considerations in their interpretation and application. Civil Service League v. Forbes, 258 La. 390, 246 So.2d 800. Where, however, constitutional intent is evident and explicit from language used, the court may not consider a history of constitutional prohibition and may not, by considering separate but related constitutional provisions, arrive at a determination or construction which impairs the effectiveness or distorts the manifest meaning and purpose of related constitutional provisions. Public Housing Administration v. Housing Authority of City of Bogalusa, 242 La. 519, 137 So.2d 315. It is of some significance, but not necessarily controlling, that Section 15 of Article XIV was approved by the electorate on November 4, 1952, subsequent to approval of Section 22 of Article XIV, on November 7, 1950. In this instance, we rely, however, principally on the ground that Article XIV, Section 15, discloses clear, unmistakable intent to vest in the Commission sole and exclusive authority to establish, supervise and enforce a system of civil service for the City, free of legislative interference save for the right reserved to the legislature pursuant to Section 15(P) (6) to amend or repeal existing laws relating to City Civil Service, provided such amendments or new laws are merely supplementary and do not conflict with Section 15. To interpret Article XIV, Section 22, as contended by Firemen is to write out of the Constitution the mandatory language of Section 15 vesting the Commission with power to adopt rules having the force and effect of law in the Civil Service field. It would also completely negate the expressly conferred authority of the Commission to establish and adopt rules and plans fixing the pay and hours of employment of City Civil Service Employees. Construing the provisions together, we find that, insofar as City Civil Service is concerned, Section 15 is a limitation upon Section 22. We hold, therefore, that the provision of Section 22 subjecting the City to all general laws of the State is inferior to Section 15 (P)(6), which retains existing laws relating to Civil Service and authorizes legislative amendment and repeal thereof, and the adoption of new laws, subject to the restriction that such repeals, amendments or adoptions are supplementary and not in conflict with Section 15.