(DOWNLOAD) "Branche v. City Fitchburg" by Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Branche v. City Fitchburg
- Author : Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
- Release Date : January 17, 1940
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 63 KB
Description
LUMMUS, Justice. The plaintiffs in these ten actions of contract were employees of the cemetery department of the defendant, within the classified civil service. They were laid off by oral communication from the superintendent in the autumn of each year from 1932 to 1937, inclusive, and put to work again in the following spring. They were commonly spoken of as 'summer men.' The appropriations for the cemetery department were insufficient to pay them through the winters, when there was little need of their services. They understood the situation, and, except for the plaintiff Fallon at some time during the winter of 1937-1938, they never complained that any legal right of theirs was being infringed though they tried to have the appropriations increased. None of them presented himself for work during the winters after being laid off in the autumn. All of them secured other employment or tried to do so. An auditor found that all the plaintiffs 'acquiesced in their suspensions.' That finding is not overcome by the agreed fact that at some time in the winter of 1937-1938 the plaintiff Fallon brought a petition for a writ of mandamus to restore him to employment. On April 14, 1938, these actions were brought to recover wages for the periods during which the plaintiffs were out of work. The plaintiffs Forsberg, Ingandela, Krook and Nikkula were listed in the civil service lists as 'recurrent laborers,' and the other plaintiffs were listed as 'laborers.' We put to one side the contention that the four men named, by the nature of their listed employment (compare O'Brien v. Inspector of Buildings of Lowell, 261 Mass. 351, 158 N.E. 760; Frye v. School Committee of Leicester, 300 Mass. 537, 16 N.E.2d 41), and all the plaintiffs, by the nature of their actual employment, were entitled, not to continuous employment, but only to continuous connection with the public service until the statutory requirements for suspension were met. We assume in favor of all the plaintiffs, without so deciding, that laying them off for the winter without formal written notice under G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 31, § 43, was an unlawful suspension. Goss v. District Court of Holyoke, 302 Mass. 148, 18 N.E.2d 546.