Opinion
No. 75-235
Decided May 13, 1976. Rehearing denied July 1, 1976. Certiorari denied September 20, 1976.
Review of Civil Service Commission decision which awarded policeman substantial overtime pay.
Reversed
1. CIVIL SERVICE — Charter Amendment — Overtime Pay — Not Retrospective. A charter amendment effective on January 1, 1969, which specified that overtime by Denver police officers was to be compensated by allowance of equal time off or by payment of additional salary within three months after performance of the overtime, was not of retrospective effect so as to permit cash payments for overtime work performed between 1962 and 1967.
Appeal from the District Court of the City and County of Denver, Honorable Henry E. Santo, Judge.
Max P. Zall, City Attorney, Robert D. Dowler, Assistant City Attorney, Brian H. Goral, Assistant City Attorney, for plaintiffs-appellants.
Geer Goodwin, P.C., Robert E. Goodwin, for defendant-appellee Jack Groginsky.
Division I.
Defendant Jack Groginsky, a Denver police detective filed a petition with defendant Civil Service Commission in 1972, requesting compensation for 409-1/2 hours of overtime work performed by him between 1962 and 1967. The Commission granted the award, and the plaintiff City sought review thereof in a C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4) proceeding. The City appeals from the trial court's affirmance of the award. We reverse.
[1] There is no statute, and the record contains no ordinance or city charter provision in effect prior to January 1, 1969, which permits cash payments of any overtime pay to Denver police officers. A charter amendment which became effective on that date specified that overtime was to be compensated by allowance of equal time off, or by payment of additional salary, within three months after performance of the overtime. The amendment is not by its terms retrospective, and therefore it is not to be so construed. United States v. McPhee, 51 Colo. 425, 118 P. 996. There is, accordingly, no legal basis for cash payment for this preamendment overtime service either at the time of performance or on retirement or termination of employment. See City County of Denver v. Floyd, 175 Colo. 485, 491 P.2d 977; Tenney v. City County of Denver, 119 Colo. 263, 203 P.2d 504; Hillman v. Chmelka, 118 Colo. 252, 195 P.2d 945; Pootel v. City County of San Francisco, 125 Cal. App. 2d 378, 270 P.2d 553; City of Homestead v. DeWitt, 126 So.2d 582 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1961); Donohue v. Police Commissioner, 267 Md. 612, 298 A.2d 437.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court to direct the Commission to dismiss Groginsky's petition.
JUDGE COYTE and JUDGE KELLY concur.