Local 330, Akron Firefighters Ass'n v. Romanoski

629 N.E.2d 1044, 68 Ohio St. 3d 596
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedApril 6, 1994
DocketNo. 92-2203
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 629 N.E.2d 1044 (Local 330, Akron Firefighters Ass'n v. Romanoski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Local 330, Akron Firefighters Ass'n v. Romanoski, 629 N.E.2d 1044, 68 Ohio St. 3d 596 (Ohio 1994).

Opinions

Alice Robie Resnick, J.

It is not the function of this court to assess the wisdom of the program established by Fire Chief Romanoski in the summer of 1990, or to assay the propriety of a civil service system. Our sole task in this case is to determine whether the Akron City Charter authorizes a chief of the fire division to detail (temporarily assign) various classified employees to acting positions. Specifically in this case, the question is whether the Chief of the Akron Fire Division may detail an employee classified as a firefighter/medic to serve as an “acting lieutenant,” and an employee classified as a lieutenant to serve as an “acting captain,” without the approval of the civil service commission.

Section 70 of the city’s charter provides as follows:

“The fire force shall consist of a Chief and such officers and employees as may be provided for by Council. The Chief of the Division of Fire shall be in immediate charge of the fire force and shall have control of the stationing and transfer of all firemen and other employees constituting said fire force, under such rules and regulations as the Mayor may prescribe. In case of riot, conflagration or other like emergency, the Mayor, or in his absence the Chief of the fire force, may appoint, for the period of the emergency only additional firemen who need not be in the classified service.”3

In Novak v. Perk (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 43, 18 O.O.3d 251, 413 N.E.2d 784, this court considered the import of a similar provision under the Charter of the city of Cleveland. We found that “the framers of the charter signified an intention to place exclusive, overall control of the city’s fire protection forces 'in the mayor” and to give “the fire chief exclusive authority over individual assignments of fire department personnel.” Id. at 45, 18 O.O.3d at 252, 413 N.E.2d at 785.

In Harsney v. Allen (1953), 160 Ohio St. 36, 50 O.O. 492, 113 N.E.2d 86, we addressed the issue of whether the Chief of Police for the city of Youngstown may detail a police radio operator to the duties and functions of a patrolman, without the consent of the civil service commission, also under a similar provision [599]*599of that city’s charter. We held that where the employee’s “status and emoluments” are not impaired, the assignment is a proper exercise of the chiefs “exclusive control of the stationing and transfer of all * * * employees * * *.” Id. at syllabus. In so holding, we noted that the classification of police radio operator “is made in the salary ordinance of the city of Youngstown, which provides, inter alia, for four police radio operators and 176 patrolmen, each with a salary of $3,540 per year.” Id. at 40, 50 O.O. at 493, 113 N.E.2d at 88.

Harsney involved a lateral (intra-classification) assignment, i.e., an assignment from one position to another within the same civil service classification, albeit involving different duties. The present case involves a promotional (inter-classification) assignment, i.e., an assignment to a higher classified rank, albeit minus some of the attendant administrative duties of that rank.

In order to determine whether the Chief may make such a promotional assignment without approval from the civil service commission, we must consider the parameters of the authority given to the civil service commission.

A municipality has the authority to exercise all powers of local self-government and may allocate authority between its fire chief and civil service commission over the utilization and employment of its fire protection forces. Neither may usurp the authority given to the other. See, generally, Novak, supra, 64 Ohio St.2d at 45, 18 O.O.3d at 252, 413 N.E.2d at 785; Harsney, supra; State ex rel. Lentz v. Edwards (1914), 90 Ohio St. 305, 107 N.E. 768; Fitzgerald v. Cleveland (1913), 88 Ohio St. 338, 103 N.E. 512.

Section 106 of the charter provides, in relevant part, as follows:

“The Personnel Director, under the direction of the [Civil Service] Commission * * * shall prepare and recommend rules and regulations for the administration of the civil service provisions of the Charter, which shall become effective after approval by the Commission * * *.
“It is hereby provided and the rules and regulations shall provide:
“(1) For the classification and standardization of all positions in the classified service. The classification into groups and subdivisions shall be based upon and graded according to their duties and responsibilities, and so arranged as to permit the filling of the higher grades, so far as practicable through promotion. All salaries shall be uniform for like service in each grade, as the same shall be standardized and classified by the Civil Service Commission. The Commission shall have the sole power to create new classification.
“(2) For open competitive examinations to be given under the direction of the Personnel Director to test the relative fitness of applicants for such positions.
a % *
[600]*600“(4) For the creation by Personnel Director of eligible lists upon which shall be entered the names of successful candidates in the order of their standing in such examination or test.
“(5) For the rejection by the Personnel Director, by authority of the Commission, of candidates or eligibles who failed to meet reasonable qualification requirements * * *.
“(6) For the certification to the appointing authority by the Personnel Director from the appropriate eligible list to fill vacancies in the classified service of the persons with the three highest scores on such list, or of the person or persons on such list when the same contains less than three scores.
“(7) For promotion based on competitive examinations and records of efficiency and seniority. Lists shall be created and promotions made in the same manner as in original appointments. Any advancement from one job classification to another for which the maximum rate of pay is higher shall constitute promotion. Whenever practicable, vacancies shall be filled by promotion.”

Section 108 provides, in relevant part, that:

“When a position in the classified service is to be filled, the appointing authority shall notify the Personnel Director of the fact and the Personnel Director shall certify to such authority the names and addresses to the three candidates standing highest on the appropriate eligible list for the position. * * * The appointing authority shall immediately appoint one of the persons certified to such position.
“ * * * When no eligible list for such position exists or when the eligible list has become exhausted and until a new list can be created, the appointing authority may make a provisional appointment for a period of not to exceed ninety days upon authorization by the Personnel Director. * * * In the event that more than one position in the same classification is to be filled, the appointing authority shall fill one position before the Personnel Director shall certify any additional names.

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

Related

Wesolowski v. Broadview Hts. Planning Comm. (Slip Opinion)
2019 Ohio 3713 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2019)
State Ex Rel. Calvaruso v. Brown
2014 Ohio 1018 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2014)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
629 N.E.2d 1044, 68 Ohio St. 3d 596, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/local-330-akron-firefighters-assn-v-romanoski-ohio-1994.