Citation Numbers: 53 Misc. 2d 940
Judges: Prey
Filed Date: 5/24/1967
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
Acting J. The petitioner began a proceeding, by notice of motion, dated October 10, 1966 addressed to the respondent praying for an order directing the respondent to reinstate the petitioner to the position of building guard and for a further order directing payment of all back salary due and owing to the petitioner from June 14, 1966 the date of his discharge up to and including the date of reinstatement.
The respondent duly answered the allegations of the petition upon which said notice was based and the matter came on regularly for argument before Hon. Carlton A. Fisher in Special Term on the 18th day of November, 1966.
Justice Fisher on the 12th day of December, 1966 granted an order which directed that a hearing be held to ascertain the nature of the duties of a watchman or a laborer and the duties of a building guard which determination is necessary in order to ascertain whéther or not the petitioner is entitled to the relief which he seeks, and to make a determination thereon.
A hearing pursuant to the order of Justice Fisher came on regularly for a hearing before the undersigned on the 4th day of April, 1967 at which time the testimony of the plaintiff and
The whole issue arises because of the reclassification and a change in the duties of a building guard of that of a watchman. The purpose of this hearing is to determine whether the petitioner ás a watchman and employed in the labor class a noncompetitive class of the civil service system and subject to dismissal is entitled to reinstatement without loss of salary.
The proof presented was in very close conflict on this question. The petitioner and others in his behalf attempted to establish that the duties were substantially the same. Mr. Keteham, the Director of Personnel at the institution, testified that the responsibility and duties of a building guard under the rules and regulations of that classification were expanded under the reclassification giving them greater responsibility in the general operation of the security force at the institution over that of a watchman whose duties were, according to Mr. Keteham, and involved some clerical work, crowd control, sometimes motor patrol of the premises as compared to the duties of a watchman which were generally to patrol the premises seeing that the building was secure, windows closed, doors locked and generally to guard the premises from trespassers.
' After a careful scrutiny of. the testimony taken on this case and an opportunity to personally observe the petitioner the court concludes that the respondent has satisfactorily sustained the burden of establishing that the petitioner was a watchman in the labor classification noncompetitive, and that the
The court finds that the duties of the watchman were to control the premises and to ascertain that the buildings were secure, the windows were closed, the doors were locked, and to prevent trespassing upon the premises.
That the duties of a building guard were expanded to include greater security provisions involving inspection to prevent fire and theft, in general to keep order in the buildings, to welcome and assist visitors, to control crowds which under certain circumstances might converge upon the premises and occasionally to do motor patrol, to keep records, make reports of incidents that might occur on the premises during a security shift.
The position of building guard, by reclassification, became competitive requiring written examinations and appointment pursuant to and from an approved civil service list.
I find, therefore, that the petitioner is not entitled to reinstatement and that the relief sought by his petition is denied and the petition is dismissed. Let order enter accordingly.