Boucher v. Godfrey
| Decision Date | 03 April 1935 |
| Citation | 119 Conn. 622,178 A. 655 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | BOUCHER et al. v. GODFREY et al. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Frederick M. Peasley Judge.
Suit by George T. Boucher and others against Patrick Godfrey and others, for an injunction restraining defendants from changing plaintiffs' claimed seniority rights and a declaratory judgment determining such rights. From a judgment for defendants after trial to the court, plaintiffs appeal.
No error.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, BANKS, AVERY, and JENNINGS JJ.
Either party to contract of employment for indefinite term may terminate employment at any time, with or without cause.
George W. Crawford, of New Haven, for appellants.
Jeremiah D. Shea, and John Clark FitzGerald, both of New Haven (David E. FitzGerald, of New Haven, on the brief), for appellees.
The plaintiffs in this case were employed by the Connecticut Company in supervisory positions, classified as starters, inspectors, dispatchers, and carhouse foremen, or were formerly employed in such positions, but have been reduced to the ranks of motormen, conductors, and bus operators as the result of economic conditions and lessened demand by the company in the last few years for employees in the plaintiffs' class. They brought this action against the Connecticut Company and against what was known as the Joint Conference Board and sought an injunction to restrain the company from violating rights of seniority claimed by the plaintiffs. They also ask for a declaratory judgment finding and determining their seniority rights. The case was tried to the court and judgment entered for the defendants, and the plaintiffs have appealed.
The entire controversy in the court below and upon this appeal turns upon the meaning and effect of section 50 of the rules of the company which, at the time this action was brought, contained the following provision: " When a conductor, motorman or bus operator takes an official position he will not advance in his rating on the board during the period he is serving in such official positions, provided he continuously retains such position more than six months."
The finding in the case is quite long, and an attempt to set forth the facts in detail would extend this opinion to inordinate length and accomplish no useful purpose. Such facts as are essential to a consideration of the questions of law involved in this appeal are summarized as follows: The Connecticut Company operates a public utility, engaged in railway and bus transportation in the cities of Hartford, Bridgeport, New Haven, and the localities surrounding them in eastern and central Connecticut. At the time of the commencement of this action, its operators totaled, in round numbers, about a thousand men. Its operations are carried on through four divisions, known as those of Bridgeport, Hartford, New Haven, and New London. Between the years 1904 and 1910, there was inaugurated in several of the divisions a movement which resulted locally in what was termed the " bid-in-board" or " run board," which meant that a list of employees was maintained, based upon their continuous employment in the order of their seniority in the service. Several years previous to the year 1912, it became the practice of the company, as a result of an agreement with its employees, to make promotions or appointments to the runs most desirable through the operation of the " bidin" board, that is, in the order of the dates of continuous employment of the employees by the company. About 90 per cent. of the employees operating busses and trolley cars belonged to the trolleymen's union, known officially as the Amalgamated Association of Street Car & Electrical Railway Employees of America. In negotiating agreements for wages and working conditions, the company has never recognized the union as such, but has dealt with the men through an employees' committee known as the Joint Conference Board. This board consisted of twelve members elected by the members of the union, a certain number being chosen from each division except the New London-Norwich division, which was never represented.
In 1912, the first formal agreement was entered into between the company and the Joint Conference Board which became a part of the rules and regulations appearing in the book of rules prepared by the company for the guidance of its employees, and with which every employee was required to become familiar. In this agreement, section 50 first appeared, and contained a provision that a starter, dispatcher, or other transportation official holding his place on the board who returned to the cars of his own volition should go to the foot of the extra list. Between the years 1912 and 1932, the company entered into a series of short term contracts with its employees relative to wages and conditions of employment; section 50 appeared in all these contracts in substantially its original form except that since 1921, as a result of negotiations at that time between the company and the committee, the provision concerning the return of an employee to the cars at his own volition was omitted from such agreements.
The plaintiffs belonged to a class of employees who act as foremen over the general class of transportation operators to which the defendant employees belong, supervising but not having any disciplinary powers not any decision on questions of policy. They are not executives of the company in any sense. Their positions have certain advantages over those of motormen and car operators in that they enjoy no diminution of pay in case of sickness, and, until recently, had vacation privileges. All but four of them accepted promotions after the adoption of section 50 in 1912. At that time, all had knowledge of the rule. All the plaintiffs, except one, are or were members of the union and acquiesced in the rule from the date of its first adoption until the present time. All but one had opportunity to vote in the selection of the members of the Joint Conference Board, and, with the exception of four, had the right to vote upon the rule itself. All the employees of the company, whether members of the union or not, participated equally in the benefits received from the agreements and arbitrations resulting from the conferences between the officials of the company and the Joint Conference Board. None of the employees ever requested to be separately represented in the negotiations,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stephenson v. New Orleans & N. E. R. Co.
...Florestano v. Northern Pacific Ry. Co., 269 N.W. 407; Mosshamer v. Wabash R. Co., 191 N.W. 210; Donovan v. Travers, 188 N.E. 705; Boucher v. Godfrey, 178 A. 655; Kessel Great Northern Ry. Co., 51 F.2d 304; Burton v. O. W. R. & N. Co., 38 P.2d 72; Y. & M. V. R. Co. v. Webb, 64 F.2d 902; Ross......
-
Magnan v. Anaconda Industries, Inc.
...Chevrolet Co., 146 Conn. 627, 629, 153 A.2d 426 (1959); Fisher v. Jackson, 142 Conn. 734, 736, 118 A.2d 316 (1955); Boucher v. Godfrey, 119 Conn. 622, 627, 178 A. 655 (1935); see generally Feinman, "The Development of the Employment at Will Rule," 20 Amer.J.Leg.Hist. 118 (1976); Blades, "Em......
-
Beatty v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co.
... ... R. Co., (Ky.) ... 16 Tenn.App. 369, 64 S.W.2d 538; Piercy v. Ry. Co., ... 198 Ky. 477, 248 S.W. 1042; 33 A. L. R. 322; Boucher v ... Godfrey, 119 Conn. 622, 178 A. 655; Burton v. R. & ... Nav. Co., 148 Ore. 648, 38 P.2d 72--the last three cases ... being actions for a ... ...
-
Sheets v. Teddy's Frosted Foods, Inc.
...153 A.2d 426; Fisher v. Jackson, 142 Conn. 734, 736, 118 A.2d 316; Carter v. Bartek, 142 Conn. 448, 450, 114 A.2d 923; Boucher v. Godfrey, 119 Conn. 622, 627, 178 A. 655. The majority by seeking to extend a "modicum" of judicial protection to shield employees from retaliatory discharges ins......