Locke v. City of Detroit

• Decision Date: 06 October 1952
• Docket Number: No. 23,23
• Citation: 335 Mich. 29,55 N.W.2d 161
• Parties: LOCKE et al. v. CITY OF DETROIT.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 161

55 N.W.2d 161

335 Mich. 29

LOCKE et al. v. CITY OF DETROIT.

No. 23.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Oct. 6, 1952.

Paul T. Dwyer, Acting Corporation Counsel, Andrew DiMaggio, Walter E. Vashak, Helen W. Miller, Assts. Corporation Counsel, Detroit, for appellant.

George A. Kelly, Walter E. Kelly, Detroit, for appellees.

Before The Entire Bench, except NORTH, C. J.

BOYLES, Justice.

This is an appeal from a judgment for the plaintiffs in a class suit, brought under Court Rule No. 16, § 1 (1945), by and on behalf of the employees or former employees of the recorder's court of Detroit, to recover compensation withheld from them by the city during the fiscal years 1932 to 1934 on account of financial difficulties in which the city was then involved. Like suits have been before this Court for review in other cases, to which reference will later be made. In the instant case, the trial court without jury entered judgment for the plaintiffs, and the defendant city appeals.

The essential facts are not in dispute. If affirmed, plaintiffs are entitled to the amounts established by the judgment as entered, which divides and apportions the total amount between the several plaintiffs. The amount and apportionment is not challenged on this appeal.

Under the statute governing the recorder's court, ¹ its judges have the power to appoint employees and fix their compensation, provided that the total amount so expended shall not exceed the sums appropriated therefor by the legislative body of the city. The appropriations made by the common council of Detroit for said court for the fiscal years 1932-3 and 1933-4 were approximately 10% less than it had been for the fiscal years 1931-2. Obviously, this required either a reduction in number of employees or a reduction in compensation. The judges chose the latter course and arranged their payroll accordingly. Had the situation ended there, when the judges of the recorder's court adjusted downward the compensation of its employees in accordance with the reduced appropriations made by the common council, more force might now be given the defendant city's present claim that the recorder's court itself had reduced the pay of its employees without out further recourse by them. Other developments negate the city's claim that the rights of the employees were established with finality by the reduction in pay.

The so-called 'red books' showing the appropriations for the city of Detroit, including the recorder's court, for the fiscal years here involved, establish approximately 10% reductions in appropriations for said fiscal years. They show the 10% reductions in the amounts appropriated for compensation in the recorder's court as a 'salary suspension.' At the trial this was explained as a 'salary suspension item * * * suspended for the 146-C'--meaning ordinance No. 146-C.

Ordinance 146-C. thus referred to, went into effect January 7, 1932, and on May 2, 1932, ordinance 166-C went into effect. In all essentials ordinance 166-C copies the language of ordinance 146-C and has several times been construed by this Court. In Tumey v. City of Detroit, 316 Mich. 400, 25 N.W.2d 571, 574, the Court referred to said ordinances as follows:

'By ordinance No. 146-C, approved January 6, 1932, the common council of the city of Detroit provided that all officers and employees of said city, other than those of the street railway system, should contribute to the city a sufficient number of days' work each pay period so that the amount of their contributions would equal 10 per cent of the salaries or wages of officers and employees generally, and an additional 10 per cent of the salaries or wages of officers or employees receiving in excess of $4,000 per year. Subsequently, ordinance No. 166-C, was adopted, referring to the prior ordinance and providing for further contributions by officers and employees of the city. The construction of said ordinance No.166-C, was before this court in Detroit Municipal Employees Ass'n v. City of Detroit, 310 Mich. 480, 17 N.W.2d 858, in which it was held that the deductions from salaries and wages made thereunder did not constitute reductions in pay and were, in fact, contributions that were to be repaid later when payment became possible.'

The ordinance need not be repeated here. It was quoted at length in Detroit Municipal Employees Ass'n v. City of Detroit, 310 Mich. 480, 17 N.W.2d 858, 859, supra, where the Court said:

'To decide the cases we must construe the...