Bialeck v. City Of Hartford.

• Decision Date: 31 May 1949
• Citation: 135 Conn. 551,66 A.2d 610
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: BIALECK et al. v. CITY OF HARTFORD.

135 Conn. 551

66 A.2d 610

BIALECK et al.

v.CITY OF HARTFORD.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 31, 1949.

Appeal from City Court of Hartford; Shipman, Judge.

Action by Raymond Bialeck and others against the City of Hartford to recover compensation alleged to be due the plaintiffs as teachers, brought to the City Court of Hartford and tried to the court. Judgment for the defendant, and appeal by the plaintiffs.

No error.

The appellants filed a motion for reargument, which was denied.

William J. Galvin, Jr., and James N. Egan, Hartford, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Frank A. Murphy, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Hartford, with whom were Samuel Gould, Assistant Corporation Counsel, Hartford, and, on the brief, Franz J. Carlson, Corporation Counsel, Hartford, for the appellee (defendant).

Before MALTBIE, C. J., and BROWN, JENNINGS, ELLS, and COMLEY, JJ. (Judge JOHN M. COMLEY of the Superior Court sat for Judge Dickenson.)

JENNINGS, Judge.

The Hartford board of education in 1946 voted, ‘subject to receipt of necessary additional funds,’ to pay each teacher a cost of living adjustment of $450. It requested an appropriation for that purpose from the city council. This was refused. The basic question is whether the teachers have an enforceable contract for the $450. The statement of facts is facilitated by two factors. None of the findings of fact are disputed. Most of the requests to have paragraphs of the draft finding added to the finding are abandoned. The rest are, in the main, either substantially included in the finding or immaterial. The plaintiffs are entitled to have the gravity of the emergency facing the city and the teachers emphasized, and the following summary recognizes this fact.

The plaintiffs represent numerous teachers of more than ten years' experience in the Hartford public schools. They are now serving under the board of education and served under the former district system. They were originally appointed to teach during the pleasure of the board and received a statement of their salary annually, on or about April 1. In 1645 a tenure act was passed. 24 Spec.Laws 683. Thereafter, regularly appointed teachers had permanent positions and could be dismissed only for cause. They could resign at any time.

In the fall of 1946 there was a definite and sudden rise in the cost of living. The plaintiffs believed that they needed and should receive increased compensation. The matter was discussed in their associations and with the board of education. The board of education was deeply concerned about the possible effect upon the school system of the plaintiffs' dissatisfaction with their pay. These negotiations culminated in the passage of the following vote by the board of education on November 12, 1946: ‘[1] That subject to receipt of necessary additional funds, a cost of living adjustment of $450 be provided for all roster and continuous employees to be paid in equal monthly installments from the date that funds become available to March 31, 1947; [2] That from December 1, 1946, subject to receipt of necessary additional funds all evening school teachers be placed on a schedule ranging from $5.00 to $6.50 per night; [3] That the Board request from the Court of Common Council an appropriation of $525,000 to meet the cost of the above cost of living adjustment through March 31, 1947.’

At this time the board of education faced a deficit of $68,000 in its appropriation, so there were insufficient funds in its budget to meet the increase requested. It forwarded a copy of the vote to the city council. A draft resolution appropriating $525,000 to the board of education accompanied the vote. The council referred the matter to the board of finance the same day. On December 23, the board of finance recommended to the council the appropriation of $700,000 to provide a cost of living adjustment of $240 per year to each full time employee of the city, including employees of the board of education. The council adopted the recommendation, appropriated the sum named and directed the board of finance to allot it so as to accomplish the stated purpose. The council did not pass the draft resolution proposed by the board of education appropriating $525,000. The appropriation made resulted in a budgetary deficit equivalent to two and one-half mills on the tax list of the city in its accounts for the fiscal year. No further action was taken by the council or board of finance in regard to this matter, with the exception of the necessary financing. This suit was brought before any payments were made. The $240 was subsequently paid, but the payment was neither made nor accepted in full satisfaction of the plaintiffs' claims for $450 each.

From November 12, 1946, until January 14, 1947, the date of this writ, the teachers, their committee and counsel labored with the board of education, the council and the board of finance to secure the appropriation requested by the board of education. On December 19, 1946, for example, the teachers' professional committee was empowered in its discretion to declare a cessation of work if the board of finance and the city council did not meet the request of the teachers. There was talk of a strike. The board of education, on January 16, 1947, adopted a statement that it would continue its earnest efforts on behalf of its employees as long as they continued to discharge their duties to the community, but that, whatever the cause, there could be no strike against the children of Hartford. Both before and after action by the city council, the board of education did everything in its power to secure the appropriation requested. It is unnecessary to discuss these efforts in detail. They were ineffective.

The trial court concluded, in effect, that the council was the sole authority which had the power to provide additional appropriations after the budget was fixed; that the board of education did not have the power to grant the adjustment of $450, because it would have exceeded its appropriation; that the vote of November 12 was at most an offer to pay this adjustment on condition that additional...