Court Opinion

ID: 9654347
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:16:06.842881+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:08.206963
License: Public Domain

STEPHENSON, Justice
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The only question in this case is whether the second city ordinance is in conflict with the statute referred to in the majority opinion which says that all persons in each classification shall be paid the same salary and, in addition thereto, be paid for seniority or longevity that he may be entitled to.
This city ordinance says that anyone with six months service as of October 1, 1974, is entitled to be paid $799 per month. However, another patrolman with six months service accruing October 2, 1974, or any time thereafter, would not be entitled to be paid $799 under the ordinance. Likewise, any patrolman with eighteen months service as of October 1,1974, would be paid $838 per month, while any patrolman accruing eighteen months service after October 1, 1974, could not draw the same pay.
I agree the city can pass, alter, and repeal its ordinances, but any ordinance regulating the pay of a policeman must not be in conflict with the statute mentioned above.
The City of Beaumont has full control over the salaries of its policemen as long as all patrolmen with the same classification are paid the same. Without a doubt the city could provide for longevity or seniority pay such as those patrolmen with six months or eighteen months service. But, to *412provide that one patrolman with six months service on October 1, 1974, will be paid one amount and another patrolman with six months service on October 2,1974, or thereafter, shall be paid a smaller amount, does not comply with the statutory requirement that those in the same classification be paid the same. This is also true of the patrolmen with eighteen months service.
The fact that there was an ordinance adopted October 1, 1974, in my opinion, has nothing to do with the outcome of this suit. I did not come to the conclusion set forth above because there might be a claim of “acquired vested right”. As stated above, the sole reason for this dissent is the conflict between the ordinance and the statute.