Goodfellow v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 27.

• Decision Date: 08 October 1945
• Docket Number: No. 27.,27.
• Citation: 312 Mich. 226,20 N.W.2d 170
• Parties: GOODFELLOW et al. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

312 Mich. 226

20 N.W.2d 170

GOODFELLOW et al.

v.CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al.

No. 27.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 8, 1945.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County, in Chancery; Arthur Webster, judge.

Suit by Clarence Goodfellow and others against the Civil Service Commission and others for an order directing the reinstatement of plaintiffs as employees of the Department of Street Railways of the City of Detroit, and for other relief. A motion to dismiss the bill for want of equity and want of jurisdiction was granted, and from the decree dismissing the bill, plaintiffs appeal.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Edward N. Barnard, of Detroit, for appellants.

William E. Dowling, Corp. Counsel, Paul T. Dwyer, Chief Asst. Corp. Counsel, and Walter E. Vashak, Asst. Corp. Counsel, all of Detroit, for appellee Civil Service Commission.

Rodney Baxter, James S. Shields, Leon H. Harman, and Helen W. Miller, all of Detroit. for appellee Street Railway Commission.

REIE Justice.

The bill in this case was filed April 20, 1943, against the civil service commission of the city of Detroit and the department of street railways of the city of Detroit, so that the city of Detroit, a municipal corporation, is in effect and in fact one of the defendants represented herein through its department of street railways.

The 176 plaintiffs seek to obtain an order of the chancery court setting aside and holding for naught the actions of the defendants and each of them so far as plaintiffs are concerned and directing the reinstatement or re-employment of the plaintiffs herein by the defendant department of street railways. Plaintiffs further pray that the order of the court restore plaintiffs to their positions in the employment of the said department with full seniority and pension rights as pertained to them on July 17, 1942, the date on which plaintiffs and several other employees of the department of street railways struck; and further, that the chancery court direct the defendant department of street railways to reimburse the plaintiffs for back pay.

A motion was made to dismiss the bill for want of equity and for want of jurisdiction, which motion was granted, and from the decree dismissing the bill plaintiffs appeal. In considering this appeal we must take as true well pleaded facts set forth in the bill of complaint.The plaintiffs allege that on July 17, 1942, and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiffs were employes of the department of street railways of the city of Detroit, that they were members of division 26 of the Street Railway Men's Association, an affiliate of the American Federation of Labor, that at a meeting of the union on July 15 the membership affirmatively voted to go on strike on July 17, 1942, and that the plaintiffs in good faith acted in accordance with the mandate of their union and on July 17, 1942, did strike. Plaintiffs further claim that about noon of July 17, 1942, a special meeting of the union was called and plaintiffs were informed that the strike would be called off and if they returned to work and reported immediately they would be reinstated in their positions. Plaintiffs allege that thereupon they did return but were refused admittance and suspended; further that the defendant department of street railways, through its duly authorized officers, conducted an investigation and filed charges against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs claim further that a board of review was set up, before which plaintiffs and upwards of 115 others were summoned to appear; that upon plaintiffs appearing before the board of review they were formally discharged from service and that they appealed therefrom to the civil service commission of the city of Detroit in accordance with the charter provisions in such case made and provided. Plaintiffs claim that the board of review was prejudiced and acted whimsically and capriciously, and also, was unfair and discriminated in the matter of discharges; that the civil service commission following receipt of the written protests of the plaintiffs herein and upwards of 115 others, granted hearings thereon at which testimony was taken, and that the action of the defendant civil service commission was likewise whimsical, capricious and arbitrary, resulting in the loss of employment by plaintiffs, together with their seniority and pension rights and back pay.

The case, at issue upon the pleadings, was noticed for pretrial consideration. The case was assigned to Circuit Judge Arthur Webster, before whom a hearing on a motion to dismiss the bill of complaint was in progress between June 2 and June 26, 1944. On the hearing of the...