La Deaux v. County of Alameda

The respondent Grant B. LaDeaux brought this action to recover for overtime worked while a deputy sheriff in the service of the County of Alameda. The trial court entered judgment in respondent’s favor in the sum of $4,170.12.

There is little dispute about the evidence. Respondent began work for the County of Alameda in January 1945 and resigned May 1, 1963. Records of the sheriff’s office show that, during his service, he accumulated 1,121 hours of overtime, based upon a 40-hour work week. He was not paid for his accumulated overtime, either by cash or compensating time off his job. Upon termination of his services, he demanded pay in cash for his overtime work. The sheriff notified him that he had no authority to make payment. The county board of supervisors declined to pay his claim on the ground that the *263 overtime worked had not been authorized, and because he had failed to seek payment on a regular monthly basis.

The county salary ordinance was in evidence. It was stipulated that its pertinent provisions were unchanged throughout the period of time covered by respondent’s overtime claim. Paragraph 12 of the ordinance relates to compensation for overtime services of…

I dissent.

I do not read the ordinance as my associates do.

The facts are simple and undisputed. Eespondent rendered overtime services to the county. Accurate records were kept of his services. His supervisor elected to compensate him by granting him time off, but did not do so. Must the county now pay him in cash ? I think so.

Paragraph 12, subparagraph (1) of the county salary ordinance declares the basic policy of the county, which is to pay county employees for their overtime services. It says that “Anything in this Ordinance to the contrary notwithstanding and except as hereinafter provided, each hour of authorized overtime . . . shall be paid for at the hourly rate applicable to the compensation of such employee. ...” (Italics ours.)

Paragraph 12, subparagraph (9) allows an employee’s overtime services to be paid for by compensatory time off or by cash, in the discretion of the head of the employee’s department, and says that “. . . if time off is granted it shall be taken at such time as the head of the office or department may determine, but within one year after the rendering of such service. ...” (Italics ours.) Here, as I understand the prevailing opinion, since the…

The respondent Grant B. LaDeaux brought this action to recover for overtime worked while a deputy sheriff in the service of the County of Alameda. The trial court entered judgment in respondent's favor in the sum of $4,170.12.

There is little dispute about the evidence. Respondent began work for the County of Alameda in January 1945 and resigned May 1, 1963. Records of the sheriff's office show that, during his service, he accumulated 1,121 hours of overtime, based upon a 40-hour work week. He was not paid for his accumulated overtime, either by cash or compensating time off his job. Upon termination of his services, he demanded pay in cash for his overtime work. The sheriff notified him that he had no authority to make payment. The county board of supervisors declined to pay his claim on the ground that the overtime worked had not been authorized, and because he had failed to seek payment on a regular monthly basis.

The county salary ordinance was in evidence. It was stipulated that its pertinent provisions were unchanged throughout the period of time covered by respondent's overtime claim.paragraph 12 of the ordinance relates to compensation for overtime…