Askinas v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1953 |
| Citation | 330 Mass. 103,111 N.E.2d 740 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | ASKINAS v. WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP. et al. |
Gerson Askinas, Springfield, for plaintiff.
John M. Hall, G. d'Andelot Belin, Jr., Boston, for defendants.
Before QUA, C. J., and WILKINS, SPALDING, WILLIAMS and COUNIHAN, JJ.
This is a bill in equity against Westinghouse Electric Corporation, hereinafter called the defendant, and Westinghouse Electric Annuity Trust to recover the amount of retirement annuities to which the plaintiff alleges he is entitled. The case was submitted to a judge of the Superior Court on a statement of agreed facts and the answers of the defendant to the plaintiff's interrogatories. It appears that the plaintiff was employed by the defendant from May 2, 1916, to January 23, 1919; from September 9, 1919, to April 20, 1923; from September 2, 1924, to May 9, 1925; and from July 16, 1925, to July 14, 1932. On July 14, 1932, he was discharged for lack of work. Thereafter, although he applied for work, he was not re-employed until November 10, 1933. From that date he worked continuously until October 1, 1945, when he was retired at his own request. In 1929 the defendant instituted a retirement program for its employees called which was to be administered by five trustees under an indenture of trust dated October 5, 1929. The plan provided for payment by the trustees from sums deposited with them by the defendant of annuities to employees who, while in the service of the company, should retire on reaching a specified retirement age, the amounts of the annuities being determined by length of service and wages received. One of the provisions of the plan was that 'If an employe leaves or is discharged and re-enters the service, the years prior to re-entry are not counted as continuous service, except absence due to involuntary separation from the service not exceeding one year, in which event the period of absence is deducted, but prior service counts to his credit.' On his retirement the plaintiff received $137.10 as a 'lump sum payment in lieu of the small monthly payments calculated to be due * * * [him] under said plan.' This payment was computed on a period of service from November 10, 1933, to October 1, 1945. If 'the interruption in the plaintiff's employment for the period from July 14, 1932, to November 10, 1933, had not occurred * * * [he] would have been entitled' to an additional sum of $1,231.32.
It is alleged in the bill that the plaintiff's discharge by the defendant on July 14, 1932, and its failure to re-employ him before November 10, 1933, were not in good faith and were 'part of a scheme or plan' of the defendant and Westinghouse Electric Annuity Trust 'to deprive or defraud him of his rights and benefits' under the annuity plan. It is stipulated by the defendant that 'If material and for the purposes of this suit only, Westinghouse will not dispute the plaintiff's claim that during the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chelsea Industries, Inc. v. Gaffney
...Cf. Fortune v. National Cash Register Co., 373 Mass. 96, 100-101, 102, 364 N.E.2d 1251 (1977); Askinas v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 330 Mass. 103, 106, 111 N.E.2d 740 (1953); Mechanics Foundry & Mach. Co. v. Lynch, 236 Mass. 504, 505, 128 N.E. 877 The defendants' arguments, however, ignore ......
-
Karcz v. Luther Mfg. Co.
...which we reach, we need not decide whether the plaintiffs should have proceeded by bill in equity as in Askinas v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 330 Mass. 103, 111 N.E.2d 740. See Leonard v. Eastern Massachusetts Street Ry. Co., 335 Mass. 308, 313-315, 140 N.E.2d 187, and cases cited. We als......
-
Estate of Porter v. CIR
...Patton v. Babson's Statistical Organization, Inc., 259 Mass. 424, 427, 156 N.E. 534, 535 (1927); cf. Askinas v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 330 Mass. 103, 111 N.E.2d 740 (1953); Berry v. Donovan, 188 Mass. 353, 74 N.E. 603 (1905). Far from being revocable at will by the company as in Dimoc......
-
Post Pub. Co. v. Cort
...of the preference in rehiring accorded by article XII, section 2. The plaintiff relies on cases like Askinas v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 330 Mass. 103, 106, 111 N.E.2d 740, where it was said that an employee not employed for any definite term or to render any particular service could le......