Comm'r of Pub. Works of City of Quincy v. Judge of Dist. Court of East Norfolk

• Decision Date: 03 March 1927
• Citation: 258 Mass. 444,155 N.E. 431
• Parties: COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF QUINCY v. JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT OF EAST NORFOLK.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

258 Mass. 444

155 N.E. 431

COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CITY OF QUINCY

v.JUDGE OF DISTRICT COURT OF EAST NORFOLK.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

March 3, 1927.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Suffolk County.

Certiorari by the Commissioner of Public Works of the City of Quincy to review the action of the Judge of the District Court of East Norfolk, reinstating without loss of compensation foremen whose services had been discontinued by the petitioner. On petitioner's exceptions after dismissal of petition. Exceptions overruled.

J. D. Smith, City Sol., of Boston, for petitioner.

W. J. Kenney, of Boston, for respondent.

RUGG, C. J.

This is a petition for a writ of certiorari, whereby there has been brought before this court the record of the judge of the district court of East Norfolk touching a review of the action of the petitioner in discontinuing the services of two foremen in the employ of the city of Quincy classified under the civil service rules. Proper notice and hearing were given to the foremen by the petitioner. The petitioner stated in his notice to each of these foremen:

‘That, owing to lack of work, your services will be discontinued.’

After their services were discontinued by the petitioner, the foremen, in accordance with G. L. c. 31, §§ 43, 45, brought petition in the appropriate district court for review of the action of the petitioner in discontinuing their services. At the hearing in the district court there was presented to the respondent a stenographic record of the proceedings and the evidence at the hearing before the petitioner, and an agreed statement of facts supplementary thereto. No witnesses were heard orally. The respondent found from all the evidence presented to him that at the time the services of these foremen were suspended there was no lack of work and no prospect of lack of work for them to do; that they were suspended in order that their work might be performed by working foremen; that the decision of the petitioner that their services were suspended owing to lack of work was not based upon any evidence tending to support the truth of the specification ‘lack of work’ assigned as the cause for the discontinuance of their services; and that it was an attempted evasion of the Civil Service Law. He further found as a matter of fact that the petitioner's decision ‘was made without proper cause and in bad faith.’ The decision of the petitioner was not affirmed, but reversed and the foremen reinstated without...