Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Follari v. State

Decided: September 19, 1968.


Gaulkin, Collester and Labrecque. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Gaulkin, S.j.a.d.


This is an appeal from a decision of the Civil Service Commission placing the position of building inspector of the City of Garfield in the classified service, thereby making it subject to competitive examination.

Garfield is a city of the second class, organized under R.S. 40:107-1 et seq. (Acts Saved from Repeal). In 1959 Garfield adopted the provisions of the Civil Service Act. On

April 19, 1966 Garfield adopted the Standard Building Code of New Jersey by reference, N.J.S.A. 52:27C-54; N.J.S.A. 40:49-5.1. On April 4, 1967 Follari was appointed building inspector, effective June 1, 1967. The appointment was made by the mayor, and confirmed by the city council.

Civil Service approved the appointment as a temporary one in the competitive division, pending an open competitive examination. Follari and Garfield objected to the classification, claiming that the post belonged in the unclassified service, for which no examination is required, and that Follari was entitled to tenure under R.S. 40:171-168. Civil Service rejected these contentions and ordered the examination. Follari took the examination but, upon his motion, we enjoined Civil Service from certifying the results pending the outcome of this appeal.

Follari and Garfield (hereafter appellants) claim that Garfield's building inspector is in the unclassified service as head of a department, N.J.S.A. 11:22-2(d), or as an "appointment of the mayor," N.J.S.A. 11:22-2(c). We disagree and affirm the decision of Civil Service.

Follari is the only employee in the alleged "department." However, appellants point to section B -103.0 of the Standard Building Code which provides that "the building official shall appoint such number of officers, technical assistants, inspectors and other employees as shall be necessary for the administration of this code and as authorized by the appointing authority." Appellants argue that this establishes the building inspector's right to hire and exercise control over subordinates, even though (as appellants admit) it does not give him the right to discharge them. Consequently, say appellants, the position of the building inspector substantially meets the test allegedly laid down in Milton v. Dept. of Civil Service, 71 N.J. Super. 135 (App. Div. 1961), for determining whether one is the head of a department.

To begin with, in Milton we did not lay down a definitive test. We merely said that "A review of the decisions shows

that the following factors have been considered as indicating whether or not a position is that of head of a department * * *." (at p. 140). Each case must still be considered upon its own facts and merely because those facts do or do not literally comport with the factors mentioned in Milton will not automatically answer the question whether a position is that of head of a department.

Beyond that, this case does not exhibit the factors mentioned in Milton. The mere fact that the Standard Building Code gives the building inspector the right to appoint such subordinates as the municipality might authorize is immaterial, for here the municipality authorized none. It must be remembered that the Standard Building Code is a form designed to be available for use by all New Jersey municipalities, large and small. Therefore the mere adoption of its general words provides no basis for evaluation of a position unless and until the words are implemented by action of the municipality. Here Garfield has not authorized the appointment of any subordinate to the building inspector, and there are no employees of any kind in his alleged "department" other than himself. In Milton the officer in question had 55 subordinates under him. In addition, he had the right to fire as well as to hire employees, which Garfield's building inspector does not have.

Appellants argue that Follari would not be "a subordinate of another officer of the municipality," which was also one of the factors mentioned in Milton. However, standing alone that is of little importance. In small communities there rarely are members of the governing body or other officers with the training which would enable them to supervise the technical details of the work of building, plumbing, health and similar inspectors. This does not make them heads of departments. Cf. Mara v. Parsippany-Troy Hills Twp., 24 N.J. 113, 119 (1957). On the other hand, building inspectors in all ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.