California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Rose v. City of Hayward, 126 Cal.App.3d 926, 179 Cal.Rptr. 287 (Cal. App. 1981):
When asked to explain the rationale behind excluding the uniform allowance from the pension benefits, the administrator for PERS stated, "This is something for the convenience of the employer. It's a condition of employment and it's not compensation for services." We would agree with the administrator in that a uniform allowance benefits the employing police and fire department. To say that the uniform allowance benefits the employer, however begs the question. The issue is whether or not the allowance provides an "advantage" to the employee. While it is accurate to say that uniformity of attire provides a benefit to the employer in that it makes these civil servants readily identifiable to the public, it is at the same time accurate to say that the uniform allowance provides a benefit to the employee in that the uniform substitutes for personal attire which the employee would otherwise be forced to acquire with personal resources. Therefore, the uniform allowance must be included in the computation of pension benefits. 2 (See also, Anderson v. City of Long Beach (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 699, 702, 341 P.2d 43.)
[126 Cal.App.3d 944] Ammunition Allowance
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.