Corriveau v. Jenkins Bros.

• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WYNNE; In this opinion DALY
• Citation: Corriveau v. Jenkins Bros., 144 Conn. 383, 132 A.2d 67 (Conn. 1957)
• Decision Date: 22 May 1957
• Parties: James T. CORRIVEAU et al. v. JENKINS BROTHERS. Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut

Page 67

132 A.2d 67

144 Conn. 383

James T. CORRIVEAU et al. v. JENKINS BROTHERS.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

May 22, 1957.

Samuel Gruber, Stamford, and Robert B. Seidman, Norwalk, for appellants (plaintiffs).

Morgan P. Ames, Stamford, with whom was Edward R. McPherson, Jr., Stamford, for appellee (defendant).

Before BALDWIN, O'SULLIVAN, WYNNE and DALY, JJ., and JOHN H. KING, Superior Court Judge.

WYNNE, Associate Justice.

In this action the plaintiffs are seeking to recover wages they claim are due as part of the compensation for their employment during the year 1947. It is a class action on behalf of a large number of the employees of the defendant. The defendant is a manufacturer in Bridgeport. In its answer it denied the claim made by the plaintiffs. The pleadings having been closed, the matter was referred to a state referee to hear and report to the court the facts in the case.

Following is a summary of the facts found by the referee which are not challenged: The named plaintiffs are James T. Corriveau, John Lankton and Luther Titus. They are suing in behalf of themselves individually and for the benefit of all others similarly situated, being about one thousand in number, to recover upon the basis that each of the plaintiffs was entitled to receive at the end of the year 1947 payment of a sum equal to 10 per cent of his total earnings during that year. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, the hearing was confined to the question of the company's liability without regard to the amount which any particular plaintiff would be entitled to recover should the defendant be held to be liable. The defendant is a New Jersey corporation. The plaintiff Corriveau is an employee in the maintenance department and has been employed by the defendant since 1940. He became, in 1946, president of the union which was the accredited bargaining representative for the company employees and continued in that position through 1947. The plaintiff Lankton was in 1947 an employee of the company and a member of the union. The plaintiff Titus was an employee throughout the year 1947 and was a member of the union and had been chief steward. After the company failed to make a year-end payment to its employees at the end of 1947, and after the union failed to obtain such a payment, the three named plaintiffs were appointed a committee to take such action as counsel might advise. The present action ensued. Between January 5 and February 6, 1950, papers were circulated among the employees of the company authorizing the named plaintiffs to represent any employee signing the papers. A few less than 500 employees became signatories. Previously, year-end payments had been made to serve as an incentive to employees. The 1946 wage agreement between the company and the union made no reference to any year-end payment.

Upon the basis of voluminous findings, of which the above is a summary, the referee found that the company had not agreed to make a year-end payment in 1947 and had not intended that the practice which had grown up should give rise to any future obligation. There were motions both by the plaintiffs and the defendant to correct the referee's report. While some corrections were made, the findings that remain are in all respects as set forth above. The final and definitive report was accepted by the court and judgment was rendered thereon. This appeal by the plaintiffs is from that judgment.

The assignments of error are in two categories. The first concerns the rulings on the defendant's motion for more specific statement and the plaintiffs' motion for disclosure. No point is made in the plaintiffs' brief regarding these rulings and they are treated as abandoned. Bridgeport Hydraulic Co. v. Town of Stratford, 139 Conn. 388, 390, 94 A.2d 1; Maltbie, Conn.App.Proc. (2d Ed.) pp. 208, 415. There are ten paragraphs in the second category. The sole issue comprehended in nine of them is succinctly stated by the plaintiffs as follows: Did the court err in accepting the referee's report that the plaintiffs under their contract of hire were not entitled to a year-end payment such as had customarily been made by vote of the directors? Clearly, the answer to the question raised is concerned solely with whether the company had established a custom which became part of the fabric of employment. In other words, did the practice of the company over the years give rise to an implied contract to pay additional compensation at the end of each year?

Six paragraphs of the plaintiffs' motion to correct the referee's report amount to requests to make findings that no evidence was presented on various aspects of the long and heated dispute. None of these requests fall within the rule of Tiernan v. Savin Rock Realty Co., 115 Conn. 473, 475, 162 A. 11. One paragraph seeks to convert sketchy statements of two witnesses into a finding or a generally announced and binding company policy. The referee failed to make the finding requested. The matter was one...