Opinion
No. 79-183
Decided February 20, 1980.
Civil service — Civil service commission — Removal of classified employee — Appealable to Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 2506.01.
Where the civil service commission of a municipality removes a classified employee from his position for disciplinary reasons, that decision may be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lake County.
George Walker was employed as a building inspector for the city of Eastlake in the classified civil service. On or about June 6, 1975, the Eastlake Mayor and the Director of Public Safety served Walker an order of dismissal based on alleged misconduct, including incompetence, misfeasance, and neglect of duty on Walker's part.
On June 10, 1975, Walker appealed the order of dismissal to the Civil Service Commission of Eastlake, which found on May 24, 1976, that Walker had carelessly performed one housing inspection, that he had allowed the installation of copper water tubing not permitted under the city code in another house, and that he had authorized issuance of certificates of occupancy when premises were unacceptable on the representation of a realty company that corrections would eventually be made. The commission found that this conduct constituted misfeasance, neglect of duty and incompetence.
The commission stated further that while the conduct might have constituted grounds for the dismissal, because the city had failed to adequately inform Walker that his conduct placed him in jeopardy of dismissal and had not attempted to employ methods of discipline short of dismissal to improve his conduct, the dismissal would be modified to a one-year suspension, without compensation.
On June 4, 1976, the city filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas of Lake County pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506. Walker cross-appealed. No additional evidence was presented and, based on the transcript of the hearing before the commission, the Court of Common Pleas, on September 1, 1977, modified the order from a one-year suspension to a dismissal.
On October 28, 1977, Walker appealed, presenting six assignments of error in the Court of Appeals. That court reversed the Court of Common Pleas, ruling only on the first assignment of error. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in accepting and conducting the appeal as an R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal, rather than an appeal under R.C. 119.12. In reversing the court's decision, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
This cause is now before this court pursuant to our allowance of a motion to certify the record.
Messrs. Turi Adelman and Mr. Louis A. Turi, Jr., for appellee.
Mr. Theodore R. Klammer, director of law, and Mr. E. W. Mastrangelo, for appellant.
R.C. 124.34 regulates the procedure by which appointing authorities may dismiss (remove) a member of the classified civil service. It provides for appeal to the State Personnel Board of Review or, in cases of municipal appointing authorities, such as appellant in the case at bar, to the municipal civil service commission.
R.C. 124.34 provides further that:
"In cases of removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons, either the appointing authority or the officer or employee may appeal from the decision of the state personnel board of review or the commission to the court of common pleas of the county in which the employee resides in accordance with the procedure provided by section 119.12 of the Revised Code."
It is on the basis of this language in R.C. 124.34 that the Court of Appeals determined that the Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction to review the city's appeal.
However, R.C. 2506.01 provides, in pertinent part:
"Every final order, adjudication, or decision of any officer, tribunal, authority, board, bureau, commission, department or other division of any political subdivision of the state may be reviewed by the common pleas court of the county in which the principal office of the political subdivision is located, as provided in sections 2505.01 to 2505.45, inclusive, of the Revised Code, and as such procedure is modified by sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, of the Revised Code.
"The appeal provided in sections 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, of the Revised Code is in addition to any other remedy of appeal provided by law." (Emphasis added.)
The language of R.C. 2506.01 is clear and unambiguous; the right of appeal described therein is in addition to any other remedy of appeal provided by law.
It is abundantly clear that an appeal is available from a final order of a commission of a political subdivision of the state unless another statute, enacted subsequent to the enactment of R.C. 2506.01, clearly prohibits the use of this section. (See R.C. 1.52.)
While the relevant portion of R.C. 124.34 was enacted after R.C. 2506.01, the language regarding appeals to Courts of Common Pleas contained therein is not mandatory or exclusive in nature. Nor does the language in R.C. 124.40, which states that "[t]he procedure applicable to reductions, suspensions, and removals as provided for in section 124.34 of the Revised Code, shall govern the civil service of cities," make the provisions of R.C. 124.34 regarding use of R.C. 119.12 mandatory or exclusive. Use of R.C. 2506.01 is not precluded by either R.C. 124.34 or 124.40. Thus, the decision of the Civil Service Commission of Eastlake in the case at bar is appealable pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.
In conclusion, we hold that when a municipality removes a classified employee from his position for disciplinary reasons, a decision by that municipality's civil service commission may be appealed to the Court of Common Pleas pursuant to R.C. 2506.01.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause is remanded to that court for disposition of the remaining assignments of error.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
HERBERT, W. BROWN, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.