Walsh v. Commissioners of Civil Service

• Decision Date: 24 May 1938
• Citation: Walsh v. Commissioners of Civil Service, 300 Mass. 244, 15 N.E.2d 218 (Mass. 1938)
• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Parties: PAUL F. WALSH & another v. COMMISSIONERS OF CIVIL SERVICE.

300 Mass. 244

15 N.E.2d 218

PAUL F. WALSH & another v. COMMISSIONERS OF CIVIL SERVICE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 24, 1938

December 10, 1937.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., FIELD, LUMMUSQUA, & COX, JJ.

Civil Service.Quincy.

Spec. St.

1919, c. 134 Section 2, placing in the board of managers of a hospital maintained by the city of Quincy"the authority to employ and remove . . . all . . . agents and employees," did not remove such agents and employees of that city from the operation of the civil service law, which had been adopted by the city.

PETITION, filed in the Supreme Judicial Court for the county of Suffolk on October 5, 1937, for a writ of mandamus.

The petition was ordered dismissed and the case was reported by Pierce, J. A I. Burgess, for the petitioners.

R. Clapp, Assistant Attorney General, for the respondents.J. D. Smith, by leave of court, submitted a brief as amicus curiae.

RUGG, C.J.This is a petition for a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to refrain from causing the removal of the petitioners from their positions as employees of the Quincy City Hospital.There was a hearing upon the petition and answer by a single Justice, who made an order dismissing the petition and then reported the case upon the petition and answer for the determination of the full court.In these circumstances there can be no dispute as to the facts.Joslin v. Boston & Maine Railroad, 274 Mass. 551 , 552.The events material to the grounds of this decision are these: Pursuant to the authorization of

Spec. St.

1919, c. 134, the city of Quincy established a hospital for the treatment of those who require temporary medical or surgical relief and treatment for sickness or injuries.The petitioners were employed as ambulance drivers under the board of managers of the hospital, but not in accordance with the civil service laws.The city of Quincy had adopted the provisions of the civil service laws applicable to municipal employees prior to the enactment of said c. 134.By that chapter the general management, care and control of the hospital and "the authority to employ and remove superintendents, nurses, attendants, and all other agents and employees" were vested in a board of managers.An eligible list from which persons may be chosen for positions such as those held by the petitioners has been set up by the respondents in accordance with the civil service law.The respondents have advised the board of managers that the petitioners were employed in violation of the civil service laws and must be suspended or discharged.The question to be decided is whether the petitioners are subject to, or are exempt from, the operation of the civil service laws and rules, G.

L. (Ter. Ed.)c. 31, which apply generally to all employees of Quincy.

It is argued in behalf of the petitioners that the authority conferred by the words already quoted from said c. 134, touching employment and removal of agents and employees of the hospital, gives to the board of managers sweeping and unrestricted power, free from limitations upon the extent of their competency.The principle is invoked that, when the General Court deals in a comprehensive way with an entire subject, previous conflicting provisions of law are not designed to be continued.Godfrey v. Building Commissioner of Boston,263 Mass. 589 , 592.Another doctrine relied upon by the petitioners is that a special statute enacted with reference to the needs of a particular community prevails over a previous inconsistent general law.McKenna v. White,287 Mass. 495 , 499.Clancy v Wallace,288 Mass. 557, 564.Those principles do not support the contentions of the petitioners in the conditions here disclosed.There is no conflict between said c. 134 and the civil service law, G.L. (Ter. Ed.)c. 31.The words "employ and remove," or other equivalent phrases standing alone without qualification in statutes respecting public employment, do not ordinarily render inapplicable the civil service laws.It is to be presumed that the General Court, in enacting said c. 134, was not unmindful of the general civil service law.Devney's Case, 223 Mass. 270 , 271.Boston & Albany Railroad v. Public Service Commissioners, 232 Mass. 358 , 361.A statute is to be interpreted with reference to the preexisting law.Brown v. Robinson,275 Mass. 55 , 57.Lowell Co-operative Bank v. Dafis,276 Mass. 3 , 7.If reasonably practicable, it is to be explained in conjunction with other statutes to the end that there may be an harmonious and consistent body of law.Morse v. Boston,253 Mass. 247 , 252.Kelley v. Jordan Marsh Co.278 Mass. 101 , 111.Statutes"alleged to be inconsistent...