286 A.D. 575 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1955
In this proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, petitioner-appellant seeks (1) a determination that the provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is unconstitutional which declares the positions of workmen’s compensation referees to be in the exempt class of the classified civil service (L. 1950, ch. 526, § 1, amdg. Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 150), and (2) an order directing defendants-respondents to classify these positions in the competitive class.
The provision of the New York State Constitution which petitioner-appellant claims has been violated by this statute is section 6 of article V which reads, in part: ‘ ‘ Appointments and promotions in the civil service of the state * * * shall be
To a large measure, the nature of the position of workmen’s compensation referee may be found from legislative enactments. Although the Workmen’s Compensation Law was adopted in 1913 and re-enacted in 1914 (L. 1914, ch. 41), the position of workmen’s compensation referee was not established until 1921. In that year, the Legislature empowered the Industrial Commissioner, who was then charged with administration of the law, to appoint referees who were authorized to hear and determine claims for compensation. (L. 1921, ch. 50, § 19; L. 1921, ch. 642, § 2.) The law then specifically provided that “ the decision of a referee on such a claim shall be deemed the decision of the industrial board * * * unless the industrial board, on its own motion or on application duly made to it, modify or rescind such decision.”
In 1945, the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Law was reorganized. (L. 1945, ch. 74, § 21.) The name of the authority which determines claims for compensation was changed from that of “ Industrial Board ” to that of “ Workmen’s Compensation Board ” and the latter was vested with all the quasi-judicial functions which the Workmen’s Compensation Law required to be exercised. In addition, by adding section 150 to the Workmen’s Compensation Law, the Legislature reaffirmed the status of referees by again authorizing them to hear and determine claims for compensation and providing that their decisions, unless modified or rescinded by the board, should be deemed decisions of the board.
Thus by 1945, it was firmly cemented into our law that the workmen’s compensation referees were quasi-judicial officers, with power to hear and determine compensation claims and with the concomitant authority to preside over proceedings, arrange calendars, sift and evaluate evidence and render decisions on controverted claims. Five years later, the Legislature amended section 150 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law by adding
In view of the well-established nature and character of the duties of workmen’s compensation referees, we are unable to conclude that the Legislature acted arbitrarily in exempting them and in impliedly determining that no examination supplies a practicable test of fitness for the position. Candidates for the position of workmen’s compensation referee could he tested for their knowledge of rules of evidence and workmen’s compensation law and for their familiarity with the nature of accidental injuries and medical terms. But, it seems to us, no objective test would he practicable to determine such personal qualities as fairness, patience, common sense and judgment all of which are necessarily essential to the position.
This legislative declaration did not change any long-standing or well-recognized policy of the Civil Service Commission in the classification of the position of workmen’s compensation referee. As far hack as 1921, when the title “ referee ” was first used, the Civil Service Commission placed all of them, then ten in number, in the exempt class and certified that competitive or noncompetitive examinations for said positions were not practicable. (N. Y. Legis. Doc., 1922, No. 26, p. 37.) In subsequent years, the commission granted applications for additional referees in the exempt class until by 1925 there were twenty-seven positions in the exempt class. But in 1932, the commission held a competitive examination for the position of workmen’s compensation referee and several appointments were made from the list established. Prior to the legislative enactment of 1950, the number of referees had increased to fifty-one of whom twenty-six were in the exempt class, three in the competitive class and the balance were serving on a provisional basis and all were doing work of the same nature. Thus, the policy lacked consistency and was in need of the definitive direction supplied by the Legislature.
It is true, as alleged in the petition, that the Legislature held no hearings as to whether it was practicable to hold a competí
Matter of Andresen v. Rice (277 N. Y. 271, 280), relied upon by petitioner-appellant, is not controlling here. There the Legislature had sought to exempt the whole State Police force from competitive examinations and the Court of Appeals said, per Crane, Ch. J.: “ the wholesale classification en masse of an entire force, in view of past experience with such offices and positions, is contrary to the Constitution.” Obviously, the duties of a whole police force are completely different from the quasi-judicial functions of workmen’s compensation referees. The determination that examinations are practicable for the one certainly is no proof that they are for the other.
The Constitution contemplates that there are positions in the civil service of the State for which examinations are not practicable. (N. Y. Const., art. 5, § 6; Chittenden v. Wurster, 152 N. Y. 345, 358; Matter of Keymer, 148 N. Y. 219, 226.) It seems to us quite clear that the position of workmen’s compensation referee is of such a nature that it was not arbitrary for the Legislature to determine that no examination, competitive or noncompetitive, would supply a practicable test of fitness.
The order should be affirmed, with $10 costs.
Poster, P. J., Bergan, Coon and Halpern, JJ., coucur.
Order affirmed, with $10 costs.
