Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY PITTSBURGH AND DR. MARION K. MCKAY v. PAUL J. WALSH (02/04/74)

decided: February 4, 1974.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH AND DR. MARION K. MCKAY, DR. ALBERT T. STATTI AND REV. JAMES B. CAYCE, ALL MEMBERS OF THE SAID CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION; AND THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, JOSEPH M. BARR, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH, DAVID W. CRAIG, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, CITY OF PITTSBURGH, APPELLANTS,
v.
PAUL J. WALSH, JR., APPELLEE



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of Paul J. Walsh, Jr. v. Civil Service Commission of the City of Pittsburgh and Dr. Marion K. McKay, Dr. Albert Statti and Rev. James B. Cayce, all Members of the Said Civil Service Commission; and The City of Pittsburgh, a municipal corporation; Joseph M. Barr, Mayor of the City of Pittsburgh; David W. Craig, Director, Department of Public Safety, City of Pittsburgh, No. 1892 April Term, 1968.

COUNSEL

Thomas S. White, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Ralph Lynch, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellants.

H. David Rothman, for appellee.

Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr. and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 27]

This action in mandamus was brought by appellee on February 9, 1968, to have the court order appellants to certify him as a permanent employee on the Civil Service rolls as a patrolman in the City of Pittsburgh, Bureau of Police, effective September 5, 1966, or, in the alternative that he be given a hearing according to the administrative procedure mandated by the Civil Service Law and the practices of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police.

On June 6, 1966, after satisfactorily completing the preliminary requirements, appellee was sworn in as a police officer in the City of Pittsburgh and began his three months' probationary period. On September 6, 1966, by being handed a letter dated September 5, 1966, appellee was informed by the then Director of Public Safety of the City of Pittsburgh that his conduct had

[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 28]

    not been deemed satisfactory and that his employment was terminated.

On September 21 or 22, 1966, appellee had a conference with the then Director of Public Safety, protesting his termination and was told that the Director would look into the matter. On January 19, 1967, appellee had another appointment with the Director and was told that the Director would make a new investigation. On July 20, 1967, the Director wrote the Civil Service Commission and recommended appellee be reinstated as a police officer in the Bureau of Police. He stated his reasons for the recommendation as follows: "He was appointed on June 6, 1966 and was not certified for permanent appointment at the end of his probationary period. Subsequent investigation satisfies me that his performance during the probationary period was satisfactory. For that reason I recommend his reinstatement."

It is stipulated by the parties that appellee's employment as a police officer was not terminated as a result of any political, racial or religious reasons, or any other discrimination encompassed by the statute.

By letter dated January 19, 1968, the Civil Service Commission notified appellee that it would not honor the recommendation for reinstatement. Appellee requested a hearing and, by letter dated January 31, 1968, the Commission informed appellee he was not entitled to a hearing. This action in mandamus followed on February 9, 1968.

The lower court quite accurately stated the question here presented to be a very narrow one. It stated the question to be: "The critical matter for our determination is whether the Director of Public Safety possessed the power and authority to reinstate the Plaintiff some ten months following the end of his probationary period." The lower ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.