Reagan v. Mayor of Fall River

• Decision Date: 05 July 1927
• Parties: REAGAN et al. v. MAYOR OF FALL RIVER et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

260 Mass. 529

157 N.E. 522

REAGAN et al.

v.MAYOR OF FALL RIVER et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Bristol.

July 5, 1927.

Exceptions from Supreme Judicial Court, Bristol County.

Petitions for mandamus by Charles Reagan and fifteen others against the Mayor of Fall River and another for reinstatement of petitioners in employments in street department of Fall River. Petitions were denied, and petitioners except. Exceptions overruled.

T. C. Crowther, of Fall River, for petitioners.

C. W. Donovan, of Fall River, for respondents.

SANDERSON, J.

These are 16 petitions for mandamus for the reinstatment of the several petitioners in their respective employments in the street department of the city of Fall River. Each petitioner was enrolled in the classified list of the public service of the commonwealth, and duly certified as a permanent employee as laborer in the street department. On or about December 18, 1926, each petitioner received a written notice from the superintendent of streets informing him that on and after Monday, December 20, 1926, until further notice, the street department would operate on a parttime basis, that the petitioners would work two days a week. The reason given in the notice was lack of work owing to the season of the year and such a depletion of the funds of the department as not to permit full-time employment for all permanent employees. ‘Instead of depriving some men of work and granting full time to others, it has been decided to so subdivide the work that all might receive some employment.’ The petitioners did not ask for a hearing and review, as they might have done. G. L. c. 31, §§ 43, 45. Because they had failed to follow this statutory procedure, single justice denied the petitions. Exception was taken to his finding, ruling and order.

[1][2] The reasons for a suspension are required by the statute to be given within 24 hours after suspension, but it has been decided that such reasons may legally be given 3 days before the date of removal. Carey v. Casey, 245 Mass. 12, 139 N. E. 384. The notice to the petitioners in the case at bar therefore was properly given, and reasons were stated as required by the statute. As a result of this notice the petitioners were suspended within the meaning of that word as used in the statute. See, Bois v. Mayor of Fall River (Mass.) 154 N. E. 270. The court said, in Peckham v. Mayor of Fall River, 253 Mass. 590, at page 593, 149 N. E. 622, 623:

‘The appropriate procedure for trying out all questions involved in a removal or suspension of one entitled to the protection of the civil service law is that provided by the statute. G. L. c. 31, §§ 43, 44, 45, That procedure affords the exclusive remedy when it is available. * * * But when, by not receiving the required statement in writing of the reasons for removal...