Court Opinion

ID: 9687440
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:28:20.652547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:27.418646
License: Public Domain

Stuart, J.
I respectfully dissent. The majority states the real and decisive question to be: “Whether the regulations established by rules 23 and 34 are reasonable and necessary for proper departmental discipline and protection of public service.” I do not agree.
In my opinion the real and decisive question is whether fire department employees can intentionally violate rules and regu*1158lations of which they have full knowledge and deliberately disobey the order of the fire chief to comply with these rules and defend their action by claiming the rules were arbitrary and capricious. I think not.
These rules were in effect long before these petitioners were employed. They had to pass an examination showing full knowledge thereof. Obedience to the rules was a condition of their employment. The rules were violated twice in June 1964 before the fire chief called a meeting, discussed them and warned petitioners to get his approval before making any more news releases. They made no attempt to get his approval of the August 5 neAVS release and admittedly Adolated the rules and the fire chief’s order.
It is conceded a fire department is and must be a semi-military organization. Firm discipline and prompt obedience to orders are of utmost importance if it is to perform its services safely and efficiently. In spite of the present attitude of some which accept civil disobedience as a proper form of protest, it surely cannot be acceptable in this situation. The holding here encourages disobedience and insubordination. Is each fireman to have the right to determine in his oato mind whether a given rule or order is arbitrary and capricious before deciding whether to obey it? It can only contribute to a breakdown in discipline and morale which could have very unfortunate results.
I. agree firemen should have the right to take wage problems to the public. I do not quarrel with the finding that the interpretation of the rules was arbitrary. These conclusions, however, do not justify the conduct of these petitioners. The rules or interpretation should have been attacked by proper proceedings before the civil service commission or declaratory judgment action, if necessary. I cannot approve of this method of “self-help”.
Garfield, C. J., and Snell, J., join in this dissent.