City of Miami v. Gioia

215 So. 2d 780, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2735, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4871
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedNovember 19, 1968
DocketNo. 67-561
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 215 So. 2d 780 (City of Miami v. Gioia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Miami v. Gioia, 215 So. 2d 780, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2735, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4871 (Fla. Ct. App. 1968).

Opinion

POPPER, DAVID, Associate Judge.

Appellees sought and obtained, as representatives of a class of firemen a determination of their rights and obligations pertaining to temporary work assignments as fire officers, a higher classification, under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of .Miami. Rule VIII, Section 9, of said Rules reads, in part:

“ * * * No employee shall be permitted to serve in a classification higher than the classification in which he has Civil Service Status except in case of emergency. The necessity for such emergency employment beyond a thirty (30) day period in any one calendar year shall be explained to the Board in writing by the director of the department concerned, and shall be approved by the Board before such continued employment is permitted. * * * ”
The decree of the lower court, based upon evidence of. the temporary work assignments for the year 1965, provides:
“The Court finds that the defendants by their own testimony and admissions have worked firemen in higher classifications, to-wit, lieutenant and captain classifications during the year 1965 in such higher classifications for approximately 21,705 hours.
“ * * * The Court finds no provision under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations as are in evidence which would justify working a fireman in a higher classification except in the case of an emergency. The evidence clearly shows that the firemen have been required to work as fire officers (a higher classification), because of sick leave, vacation and holiday time taken by their superior officers and that these firemen, because of their assignments, have had added responsibility and duties for which they received no additional compensation and that such assignments are direct orders, the failure of which to obey could subject a fireman to disciplinary action and/or being terminated.
[782]*782“The Court further finds that the defendants have offered no testimony or other evidence that has authorized the assignment of firemen to higher classifications pursuant to Rule VIII, Section 9 of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Miami in that there has been no testimony on behalf of the defendants as to any emergency. The Court further finds that the plaintiffs have been required to perform the duties of fire officers (a higher classification) because of the insufficient number of fire officers as was testified to by LAWRENCE L. KENNEY, Chief of the Fire Department, Miami, Florida. * * *
“WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, it is
“ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defendants, CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, MELVIN REESE, City Manager, Director of Public Safety, City of Miami, Florida, and LAWRENCE L. KENNEY, Director of Department of Fire, City of Miami, Florida, are hereby restrained from working the firemen in fire officer and/or any higher classification except in the case of an emergency, and in such cases shall pay said firemen such sums or sums of money as is commensurate with the duties and responsibilities they are ordered to assume because of such emergency.
«4? * 4c
«4c 4c * »

Appellant CITY OF MIAMI contends that temporary assignments out of classification for vacations, holidays, and illnesses are emergencies and, in further support of its position, reasons that such assignments provide needed experience for those firemen who are eligible for promotion to a higher rank.

Appellees cite Black’s Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, which defines emergency as:

“A sudden unexpected happening; an unforeseen occurrence or condition; specifically perplexing contingency or complication of circumstances; a sudden or unexpected occasion for action; exigency ; pressing necessity.”

Obviously, emergency cannot be defined with absolute precision. However, lack of the elements of suddenness and unforesee-ableness is not necessarily determinative. The definition in Corpus Juris Secundum recognizes the foregoing definition of emergency, but also states, in 29A C.J.S., p. 141:

“While it has been said that the controlling idea in all of the various definitions is that an emergency is something unforeseen, and that by its very nature it is something which reasonably may not be anticipated, it has also been said that the word does not always or necessarily imply suddenness or unforeseeableness, or a temporary condition, and that an emergency may comprehend a pressing necessity or exigency, not necessarily wholly unexpected, * *

The varying definitions of the word “emergency” are sufficient to demonstrate that its meaning, to a great extent, is controlled by the circumstances under which it is used. We think it is clear that as used in Rule VIII; Section 9, of the Civil Service Rules and Regulations of the City of Miami, the word “emergency” comprehends a pressing necessity or exigency, not necessarily wholly unexpected.

Applying that definition, we do not hold that vacation and holiday assignments constitute a pressing necessity or exigency. To the contrary, vacations and holiday assignments can be planned well in advance by those in authority and are not emergencies when unconnected with circumstances which might come within the meaning of the term used herein. Illnesses are not unexpected in the ordinary meaning of the term. However, they are unforeseeable, both as to time and duration. Foresight [783]

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Ago
Florida Attorney General Reports, 1975

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
215 So. 2d 780, 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2735, 1968 Fla. App. LEXIS 4871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-miami-v-gioia-fladistctapp-1968.