Court Opinion

ID: 9721806
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:09:55.679777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:05:23.697571
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting.
I dissent. The promotional system adopted by the City of South Bend for its policemen and firemen ultimately works to circumvent our state legislature’s scheme for the payment of pension benefits to municipal police and fire retirees. This promotional system serves only to relieve the City from its statutory duty to include longevity pay in its computation of pension benefits. This circumvention of the legislative scheme is established by the evidence; therefore, the trial court’s judgment is clearly erroneous.
An understanding of the question erroneously decided by the Majority is facilitated by an examination of the legislatively-established scheme for the computation of pension benefits due police and fire retirees. Pursuant to IC 1971, 19-1-24-3, Ind.Ann. Stat. § 48-6403 (Burns Code Ed.), retired policemen are to receive “fifty per cent [50%] of the salary of a first-grade patrolman.” Longevity pay must be included in any computation of the salary upon which the pension is based. Orban v. Allen (1968), 143 Ind.App. 513, 241 N.E.2d 378, 380; Kilfoil v. Johnson (1963), 135 Ind.App. 14, 191 N.E.2d 321. Furthermore, pensions are to be computed on the basis of the highest paid first-class patrolman’s salary. IC 1971, 19-1 — 24—3(3), supra; City of Vincennes v. McCarter (1968), 142 Ind.App. 493, 236 N.E.2d 76, 78; Kilfoil v. Johnson, supra. An analogous statutory scheme governs *852pension benefits for retired firemen; pursuant to IC 1971, 19-1-37-14, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 48-6528 (Burns Code Ed.), a retired fireman is to receive “a sum equal to fifty per cent [50%] of the monthly wage received by a fully paid first-class fireman . . . 1
Before examining the evidence relating to South Bend’s systems for the promotion of its policemen and firemen I note that for our purposes here, the systems used in each department are identical. Nonetheless, in the interest of clarity, I will examine them separately.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
Prior to 1970, the South Bend Police Department’s system of promotion squared neatly with the terminology and design of the legislature’s pension scheme. Under the then-existing scheme, the top rank available to non-administrative police personnel was status as “First-Class Patrolman”. A first-class patrolman received 'a base salary which was supplemented with longevity pay figured in yearly increments.
In 1970, however, this system was replaced with the promotion system-at-issue. Under the new system, patrolmen were divided into three ranks: (1) Officers-in-Training; (2) Patrolmen Second Class; and (3) Patrolmen First Class. According to the system, policemen advanced through these three ranks on the basis of longevity; policemen obtained the rank of first-class patrolmen after, two years of service. Thereafter they received one longevity pay increase at the beginning of their third year of service. However, no more longevity pay increases were available to a policeman so long as he retained his rank of first-class patrolman. In other words, a ceiling was placed on the salary any policeman could receive as a first-class patrolman, regardless of the length of his service in that rank.
Only if a policeman advanced from the rank of “Patrolman First-Class” to that of “Corporal” did his longevity pay resume. The rank designation “Corporal” was created with the inception of the new promotion scheme in 1970.
Two factors determined whether a patrolman first-class was promoted to the rank of corporal: (1) five years of service with the police force, and (2) a recommendation by the Chief of Police that the policeman be promoted from “First-Class Patrolman” to the rank of “Corporal.”
The testimony of the various Chiefs of Police who administered the promotion system clearly reveals that with rare exceptions, promotions from “First-Class Patrolman” to “Corporal” were granted as a matter of course to policemen with five years service. The Chiefs’ testimony also refutes the Majority’s speculation that the reason virtually no policeman was denied the promotion was that the City considered its police force “to be of high caliber.” The following is the testimony of the Police Chiefs who made the recommendations for promotions:
“MR. LOREN BUSSET: CHIEF OF POLICE, 1969 to 1971
“Q. Were there officers with more than five years’ not promoted to corporal?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Name them.
“A. I could not name them now without referring back.
“Q. Can you estimate the number?
“A. Two or three, I would imagine.
“Q. And what was the reason or reasons that you gave for not recommending these two or three for promotion to corporal?
“A. Minor disciplinary problems. In one instance I recall the officer had gar*853nishees against his wages and things of that nature.
* * * * * *
“MR. ROBERT W. SEALS: CHIEF OF POLICE, 1972 to 1978
“Q. So what kind of conduct or behavior or performance would a patrolman have to be involved with before he would be turned down for the grade of corporal when he became eligible by length of service while you were Chief?
“A. Basically it would be conduct unbecoming an officer.
******
“THE WITNESS: Would you restate your question?
“Q. Yes. Would the conduct that would prevent a five-year patrolman from becoming a corporal be the kind of conduct that would evoke disciplinary action?
“A. Yes, sir.
******
“MR. ROBERT J. URBAN: CHIEF OF POLICE, 1973 to 1974
“Q. Did you have occasion while you were police chief to not recommend South Bend patrolmen who had been on the force for five years?
“A. Not to my memory at this time. ******
“MR. JOHN WALSH: CHIEF OF POLICE, 1974 to 1976
“Q. When Hazinski [an administrative officer] would say somebody had reached five years, you would look over the portfolio of that man and ask others whether this guy should receive the promotion or not?
“A. I would check his personnel file.
“Q. It wasn’t automatic but you would look to see if the guy deserved to be appointed to corporal; isn’t that correct?
“A. We did,' but it was an automatic promotion.
******
“Q. You had the power to turn down that promotion in rank, did you not?
“A. Yes.
“Q. And while you were the Police Chief, did you ever have occasion not to approve the promotion?
“A. Not to my knowledge, no.” (Emphasis supplied.).
As this testimony reveals, the “automatic” nature of the promotion was not, as the Majority has suggested, a reflection of the City’s appreciation for the “high caliber” of its police force. Rather, the fact that promotions were rarely denied simply reflects the fact that a promotion was forthcoming to all Patrolmen First-Class who survived five years service and conformed their conduct to department rules and regulations.
The routine dispensation of rank “Corporal” by the South Bend Police Department is further exemplified in the testimony of Mr. Richard P. Hazinski,2 a Sergeant and former Divisional Chief of the Department’s Services Division:
“Q. Have you ever been a corporal?
“A. Yes, I have.
“Q. When were you a corporal?
“A. I can’t remember right off when the new rank structure came about. I think in 1970 when anybody that had five years or over was automatically appointed as a corporal.”
The record reflects that on January 1,1970, the date that the new promotion system went into effect sixty Patrolmen — among them Richard Hazinski — were en masse promoted to the rank of “Corporal” by a single written order.3
This evidence points unerringly to the conclusion that promotions were for all practical purposes a matter of course. Oth*854er evidence reveals another tell-tale aspect of the promotion system: the duties of a “Corporal” were no different than those of a “Patrolman First-Class.” 4 Former Chiefs of Police Loren Busset, Robert Urban, and John Walsh all testified that Corporals and Patrolmen First-Class had identical duties:
BUSSETT:
“Q. Were the duties any different in corporals and patrolmen while you were chief?
“A. No, sir.
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦
URBAN:
“Q. The corporals in the South Bend Police Department, did they have a different uniform than a patrolman?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Did they wear stripes?
“A. No, sir. The only distinction was, at the time of the era I was Chief, was the badge designated corporal on the individual badges.
WALSH:
“Q. Was it different while you were chief between the pay of a corporal and the pay of — what was the grade below?
“A. Patrolman first-class.
“Q. What was the difference in pay?
“A. I don’t have that information at this time.
“Q. Was there any difference besides that between a corporal and patrolman first-class?
“A. Just pay.
“Q. Nothing about duty assignment?
MR. MCLAUGHLIN: I am going to object to it, Judge.
“Q. Was there anything that was any different between a corporal and a patrolman while you were chief?
“A. No.”
As this testimony reveals, only dissimilar badges and different salaries distinguished a “Corporal” from a “Patrolman First-Class.”
With all due respect for our law enforcement agencies, the badges — for our purposes here — are of no consequence. The amount of salary received by each rank, however, is significant. As heretofore discussed, the pension benefits received by a municipal police retiree are calculated on the basis of the salary received by a Patrolman First-Class in the particular municipality. IC 1971, 19-1-24-3, supra. In addition, longevity pay must be included in the computation of pension benefits. Orban v. Allen (1968), 143 Ind.App. 513, 241 N.E.2d 378, 380; Kilfoil v. Johnson (1963), 135 Ind. App. 14, 191 N.E.2d 321.
With these requirements in mind, it is enlighting to examine the South Bend Police Department’s salary schedule for the year 1975. The pertinent portions read:
“Service Officer Patrolman Years In Train. First Class Corporal Patrolman
0-1 $8,520 $9,000
1-2 9,240 $9,000
2-3 $9,480 9,480
3-4 9,720 9,720
4-5 9,960
5-6 10,200
6-7 10,440
7-8 10,680
8-9 10,920
9-10 11,160
10-11 11,400
11-above 11,640”
To state the obvious, the maximum salary which a Patrolman First-Class could receive in 1975 was $9,720. Pursuant to IC 1971, 19-1-24-3, supra, pension benefits received by the retirees who initiated this action were calculated with reference to the figure $9,720.
*855As is readily apparent, longevity pay was not available to a Patrolman First-Class beyond the one incremental advance ($240) afforded him at the conclusion of his third year of service. Only when a Patrolman was promoted to the rank of Corporal was his longevity pay resumed.
Since pension benefits are calculated on the basis of the salary received by a Patrolman First-Class, longevity pay was not — as required by the laws of this state — included in the computation of the pension benefits received by South Bend police retirees. Longevity pay (yearly increments of $240) was contained only in the salary for a Corporal. In tangible terms, the upshot of the South Bend promotion system and salary schedule was this: The retirees’ pensions were erroneously computed on the basis of the figure $9,720 rather than $11,640, the ultimate amount a Corporal could receive after eleven years of service in the Department. (See above salary schedule). For a retiree with twenty (20) years of service, the consequence of this erroneously-based computation would be an annual deprivation of $960.00. IC 1971, 19-1-24-3(3), supra .5
This impact was the only significant result of the City’s adoption of its new promotion system and concomitant salary schedule. The promotion from Patrolman First-Class to Corporal was for all practical purposes automatic; it was bestowed upon the basis of five years longevity in the Police Department. The duties of a promoted policeman remained unchanged. The City’s adoption of its new promotion system merely worked a de facto circumvention of the municipal police pension plan enacted by our state legislature. The evidence points unerringly to that conclusion; the Majority errs when it holds otherwise.
Finally, I take issue with the Majority’s statement that the retirees’ only recourse to remedy the deprivation of pension benefits is with the legislature. I suggest that the legislature never contemplated that its pension plan would be circumvented by appellations without substance. After all, to borrow a phrase from James Thurber, the South Bend Police Department’s “Corporal” is a “mythical beast”6; he is simply a Patrolman First-Class with five years experience. To remedy the de facto circumvention which the title “Corporal” works on the legislature’s pension plan, I would hold that for purposes of calculating South Bend police retirees’ pension benefits, the phrase “first-grade patrolman” contained in IC 1971, 19-1 — 24-3, supra, means “Corporal.” This approach is consistent with the well-settled rule that the police pension statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of those who receive the pension benefits. Schock v. Chappell (1952), 231 Ind. 480, 109 N.E.2d 423. This approach is imperative to bring the South Bend promotion scheme within the spirit, objective, and meaning of IC 1971, 19-1-24-3, supra; the spirit rather than the letter of the statute should prevail. Economy Oil Corp. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue (1975), 162 Ind.App. 658, 321 N.E.2d 215, 218; Town of Kewanna Water Wks. v. Indiana Emp. Sec. Div. (1961), 131 Ind.App. 400, 171 N.E.2d 262, 264. See also, City of Gary v. Baker (1974), 166 Ind.App. 26, 333 N.E.2d 808, 810.
FIRE DEPARTMENT
For purposes of brevity, I forego a lengthy and detailed examination of the nuances of the South Bend Fire Department’s promotion scheme. For our purposes here, it is in all respects identical to the police promotion scheme heretofore discussed. The circumvention worked by the fire promotion system on the legislature’s pension plan is established without contradiction by the evidence.
Like the Police Department, a new promotion system was adopted for the Fire Department effective January 1, 1970. With the effective date of the new promo*856tion, a new rank was created in the department. The designation for the new rank was “Engineer.” Firefighters advanced through the following rank categories under the new system: (1) Fireman-in-Training; (2) Fireman; (3) Fireman First-Class; and (4) Engineer.
Also effective January 1, 1970, 127 Firemen were promoted en masse in a single written order to the rank of “Engineer.” This mass promotion reflects the fact that once any Fireman First-Class had served five years he was — under the new system— automatically promoted to the rank of “Engineer.” Former Chief of the Fire Department Joseph Zurat (1968 — 1971) and Jack Bland (1973-1976) both testified that the promotions were automatic upon a fireman’s attainment of five years longevity. In fact, there is no evidence that any fireman was ever denied the promotion to “Engineer.”
Both Former Chiefs of the Fire Department also testified that there was no difference in the duties of a “Fireman First-Class” and those of an “Engineer.” In other words, an “Engineer” was nothing but a “Fireman First-Class” with five years experience.
The only difference between the two ranks was the amount of salary firefighters in each category received. According to the Fire . Department’s 1975 pay schedule, a “Fireman First-Class” received an annual wage of $9,480. The highest salary an Engineer could receive under that pay schedule was $10,733. Inasmuch as the ranks performed the same duties, the pay difference can only be said to reflect longer tenure of those firemen ranked as “Engineers.” It was, after all, longevity which earned them their ranking.
Municipal fire retirees’ pension benefits are computed on the basis of the salary received by a “first-class fireman.” IC 1971, 19-1-37 — 14, supra. It is readily apparent that the only consequence of the South Bend Fire Department’s promotion scheme and concomitant salary schedule was that its retirees were deprived of the benefits the legislature intended for them. The Majority clearly errs when it holds otherwise. For the reasons previously discussed, I would hold that the legislative phrase “first-class fireman” — for purposes of computing South Bend fire retirees’ pension benefits — should be interpreted to mean “Engineer.”
SUMMARY
Between 1970 and 1975, roughly two hundred firemen and policemen were eligible for promotion to the newly created ranks of “Corporal” and “Engineer.” Of these eligible municipal servants, only four or five were denied a promotion; those denials, which all occurred in the Police Department, were all motivated by the fact that the subject officers had violated Department rules and regulations. In both departments, the promoted officers and firefighters continue to discharge the same duties which were charged to them under their previous rank. It can only be said that the new ranks of “Corporal” and “Engineer” were a matter of form and not substance; the Majority errs when it concludes otherwise.
The legislature intended the South Bend police and fire retirees to pension benefits determined on the basis of longevity. The titles “Corporal” and “Engineer” served only to circumvent the legislature’s intent. The Majority has erred in refusing to enforce the spirit and objectives of the pension statutes; its opinion elevates form over substance through its adherence to the letter of the pension statutes.
I dissent.

. Under both statutory pension plans, only retirees with more than twenty years active service receive “fifty per cent” of the base figure. Those with less than twenty years active service receive a smaller percentage of the base amount. In any case, however, the basis for the computation remains the same: police pension benefits are determined on the basis of the first-grade patrolman’s salary, while fire retirees’ benefits are determined on the basis of a “first-class” fireman’s salary.

. We note that it was established in the trial court that Judge Hosinski and Witness Hazin-ski are in no way related.

. The order was made upon Chief of Police Loren Busset’s recommendation to the Board of Public Works and Safety. Plaintiffs Exhibit 32, Transcript p. 703(A).

. I am fully cognizant of testimony that indicates that if three Patrolmen and one Corporal were on the scene of an accident, the Corporal would be in charge. In any such situation, the senior policeman in rank or tenure is in charge, according to Department regulations. Thus, the rule was not peculiar to Corporals; if a Sergeant arrived on the scene, he would take command. Furthermore, due to the automatic nature of promotion to Corporal for Patrolmen with five years experience, the Corporal would be in charge on the basis of tenure — regardless of rank. In other words, at this level of the department hierarchy, rank and tenure were one and the same.

. For those retirees with twenty years of active service, the statute provides that the pension be calculated on the basis of “fifty per cent” of the Patrolman First-Class’ salary.

. James Thurber, “The Unicom in the Garden”, from Fables of Our Time (2nd Ed. 1940).