Hopper v. Jones

Delaplaine, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. Andrew J. Hopper, of Anne Arundel County, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Harry C. Jones, State Employment Commissioner, to rescind an order laying him off from employment as an industrial accident investigator for the State Industrial Accident Commission,, and to reinstate him in that position. His petition was dismissed by the Baltimore City Court. The appellant, a veteran of the World War, received his appointment under the Merit System in December, 1937, with the credit allowed to veterans at that time Code (Supp. 1935) art. 64A, sec. 9.

During the fiscal year ending September 30th, 1939, the claim staff for the State Accident Fund consisted of five investigators with the following annual salaries: §2200, §2200, §2000, ⁴³¹ $1800 and $1500. The appellant was paid the salary of $1500. The Budget Act of 1939 contained appropriations for only four industrial accident investigators with salaries of $2200, $2200, $2000 and $1800. Acts of 1939, ch. 284.

Since the Legislature made no appropriation for an investigator with the salary of $1,500, the State Employment Commissioner issued an order of lay-off on November 13th, 1939. The appellant contended that the order was contrary to the provisions of the Merit System Act. This statute provides that whenever positions are to be abolished or discontinued as a result of change in departmental organization or stoppage or lack of work, the employees shall be laid off in the order provided by the rules of the State Employment Commissioner. Code, art. 64A, sec. 16.

The statute also provides that any rules which the State Employment Commissioner deems necessary or proper to carry out its provisions, when approved by the Governor, shall have “the force and effect of law.” Code, art. 64A, sec. 4. Rule 52 of the Merit System provides that, whenever positions are to be abolished or discontinued, the appointing authority shall lay off those employees whose service ratings are lowest. The appellant argued that Charles G. Griebel, who has been serving as an investigator since 1916, should have been laid off because he had the lowest service rating, although he has been receiving the salary of $1800. The question to be determined in this, case is whether the intention of the Legislature was to abolish the specific position which paid $1500, or any one of the five positions.

The primary duty of the court, in construing a statute, is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature. Bouse v. Hull, 168 Md. 1 , 176 A. 645 . It is conceded that if the same salary had been paid to each investigator, the one with the lowest service rating would have been subject to lay-off. The Budget Act does not mention the names of the public officers and employees of the State; but the designation of the ⁴³² amounts to be paid to each of the four remaining investigators unmistakably identifies them.

It is true that the salary schedule in the Budget Act is subject to amendment. Acts of 1939, ch. 64, art. 15A, sec. 8. But the law does not allow any deviation from the amounts set therein, unless an amended schedule, recommended by the State Employment Commissioner, is requested by the department, reviewed by the director of the budget, and approved by the Governor; and no such amendment was made in this case. The differences in the salaries of the investigators were substantial, and these differences were apparently not determined by length of service.

State Employment Commissioner Jones testified that the investigators were expected to perform the same kind of duties, but he had no knowledge of the assignment of work given to each of the investigators. Philip F. McGreevy, the investigator in charge, testified: “The duties that the investigators perform are all different, one from another.” In a case in New Jersey, where a plumbing inspection staff had consisted of three members, two of whom were laid off for the sake of economy, one of them complained that his lay-off contravened the civil service act and the act prohibiting the abolition of a position held by a war veteran. But the Supreme Court