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.

CITY PITTSBURGH v. WILLIAM J. CAVANAUGH (06/02/75)

decided: June 2, 1975.

CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PETER F. FLAHERTY, MAYOR AND PUBLIC SAFETY DIRECTOR, AND ROBERT COLVILLE, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIAM J. CAVANAUGH, WALTER GELIK AND ROBERT SMOLENSKY, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in case of William J. Cavanaugh, Walter Gelik and Robert Smolensky v. City of Pittsburgh, Peter F. Flaherty, Mayor and Public Safety Director, and Robert Colville, Superintendent of Police, No. 1776 July Term, 1972.

COUNSEL

D. R. Pellegrini, Assistant City Solicitor, with him Mead J. Mulvihill, Jr., City Solicitor, for appellants.

Peter J. Mansmann, for appellees.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Mencer, Rogers and Blatt. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 19 Pa. Commw. Page 400]

Appellees are police officers who were assigned to clerical duties in the Service Branch of the Pittsburgh Bureau of Police. In November, 1971, the City of Pittsburgh and the bargaining unit to which appellees belonged became subject to an arbitration award covering the period from January 1, 1972, through December 31, 1972. This arbitration award provided, in part:

"5. The members of the unit shall receive time and one-half of their regular pay for all hours worked in excess of eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week.

"6. All other conditions of work and benefits not in conflict with this Award shall continue as presently in force."

On February 28, 1972, appellant Superintendent of Police issued a new work schedule directive which stated, in part:

"Effective March 1, 1972, all Civilian and Police Personnel assigned to clerical duties will be scheduled from 8:00 A.M. to 4:45 P.M. with 45 minutes for lunch."

Prior to the effective date of this directive, appellees worked from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Although appellees were on duty and were paid for the entire eight hours, they were permitted to take a lunch break. No set amount of time was provided for this break, but it is clear that appellees were permitted to leave the building. On cross examination, appellant Superintendent of Police testified as follows:

"Q. I think the whole issue here is, did these men before March 1, 1972 work from 8:00 to 4:00 and take their lunch period during that period whether ...


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.