*1 Gantz v 1973]
GANTZ CITY OF DETROIT
Opinion of the Court Requirement— 1. Administrative Law —Civil Service —Residence Rules. The not the civil service de- cides if at and a Detroit Civil Service Commission appointing authority compel exceeds the promulgate or enforce. 2. Administrative Law —Civil Service —Rules—Enforcement.
The Detroit Civil Service Commission is without requirement employment; enforce a residence therefore the dismissing complaint by trial employee court erred in discharged employment by from his the Detroit Civil Service requirement Commission for failure to meet the residence complaint sought injunctive reinstating plain- where the relief tiff. Authority. 3. Administrative Service —Source of Law-^ivil city’s The of a civil service commission to and enforce rules exists because it has been city; properly complaint by a trial court dismissed a a dis- charged employee seeking reinstatement where the alleged the civil service commission’s lack of enforcement Delegated Authority 4. Administrative Law — — and Er- ror. power properly Judicial implicitly intrudes on the of a civil service commission [1] [2, [4] 15 Am Jur 15 Am Jur 15 Am Jur 2d, 2d, References 2d, Civil Service 21.§ Civil Service Service §§ for Points §§ 45, 47, 8. In Headnotes 48. as when there is an abuse of the commission’s capricious, arbitrary, action is
implicitly delegated.
*2
Wayne,
Baum,
from
Victor
J. Submit-
(Docket
13,1972, at
1
Detroit.
ted Division October
12062.)
appeal
July 23, 1973.
Decided
Leave
No.
granted,
Complaint against City A. Gantz Michael injunctive of Detroit and others for relief from his employment. Complaint from dismissed. appeals. Plaintiff
Schlussel, Lifton, Simon, Kaufman, Rands & plaintiff. Corporation Glusac, Counsel,
Michael M. and Pipp, McKinlay John R. and Francis J. Assistants Corporation Counsel, for defendants. Fitzgerald J., P. Bronson,
Before: and and O’Hara,* JJ. Early plaintiff P. J. was em-
Bronson, ployed City in the controller’s office defendant required employees Such are
of Detroit. city live within the from such unless excused (See requirement. Williams v Detroit 507, 513; [1970]). City 593, NW2d After the had received anonymous letter, Commission the Civil Service investigation conducted an and determined that City plaintiff did not reside within the of Detroit. plain- allowed the The Civil Service Commission days resi- tiff 60 within which to reestablish his City Detroit, and further or- dence within the plaintiff his did not so reestablish dered * Justice, Appeals by sitting Former Court on the Court assignment pursuant in 1968. to Const art 23 as amended § Gantz position residence, his declared vacant. Wayne County Plaintiff filed suit Circuit alleging that the Civil Service Commission jurisdiction was without position him or declare his vacant. Plaintiff also alleged irregularities certain procedures discharge. which led to Commission The records his city plaintiff indicate that was pursuant payroll removed from the action for to the above Further, the Civil Service Commission. purposes plaintiff lawsuit, of this conceded City that he was not a resident of the of Detroit. plaintiff’s request injunc- The trial court denied tive sponte plaintiff’s relief, and sua dismissed complaint. appeals again alleges Plaintiff the Civil Service Commission was without author- ity irregular. procedures to act as it did and that its were
This case raises the issue left unde- by Supreme supra, cided Williams, our Court in when it said: " * *,* pass upon question we decline to the enforcement by of the rule an by
whether by appointing the commission or author- ity.” disposition In this Court’s of the Williams case (which reversed) Supreme the we held that: "The not the [Detroit all, decides Service] at to dis- charge employee. Commission], Rule VII [of appointing authority exceeds the enforce.” compel discharge for Williams v Detroit Civil Service (1968). App 61; 15 Mich 166 NW2d As indicated their deci- App 48 Mich O’Hara, J. Williams, that decision dealt sion the Civil Commission to pro- mulgate and not with the authority such a the rule. the Commission to enforce case, In trial court held on the this issue of enforcement: " * * * think it most far-fetched to that the
body this rule had no which created is, power to enforce its own rule.” at is, first, response holding to this there is separating good precedent deal of laws, them; and, to make and the to execute second, adopt prior the rationale this Court’s Williams, 55; holding 166 NW2d (1968), and hold here that Commission is without regulation. issue, holding In of our on this view is not plaintiffs for us to consider other necessary argu- ment. dismissing plaintiffs The trial court’s order aside, is and this set cause is remanded further proceedings the trial court not in- opinion. consistent with this J., concurred. Fitzgerald, (dissenting). agree I with the trial It hardly concept a novel that under our government system is a difference be- *4 tween the to make laws and to enforce them.
However, in the case at bar deal not with a law, conflict to or but authority make enforce delegation implicit with a Gantz v Detroit system delegation and state whole national examples replete Congressional grants legislative implicit and state of enforcement board, bureau, the concerned commis- judicial power properly sion. The intrudes delegated power. abuse of the is an If arbitrary, capri- the action of the commission is power delegated, cious, or judicial is available. review The case at bar charges power, no abuse merely that such does not exist. subject does,
I hold and that it is judicial supervision as above noted.
I would affirm the trial