Richard B. Morris, Government and Labor in Early America, 1946.
To protect the workman and curb unemployment the Tudor acts restrained the wrongful dismissal of employees.1 Early American legal authorities closely followed the English law. By Rhode lsland law a master could not put a covenant servant away before the end of his term without reasonable and sufficient cause and the written approval of the chief officer of the town and "three or foure able and discreet men of the Common Council or Towne."2 The Boston town authorities in 1657 made a sweeping order requiring employers who set servants at liberty "to see after their imployment, and to secure the Town from any charge that might otherwise be occasioned by such."3 Governor Oglethorpe of Georgia expressed a responsibility to the trustee servants to give those dismissed a month's pay.4 Even in the case of free workmen the colonial authorities placed curbs on irresponsible dismissals as leading to unemployment and imposing great burdens on the poor relief agencies. In addition to allowing Thomas Marvin wages for the period he had served, the Massachusetts Court of Assistants in 1642 awarded him twenty shillings "for being turned away in winter, unprovided."5 Workmen under contract were not to be dismissed without reason.6 Modern factory executives who have found it expedient to dismiss workmen over forty with little or no regard to the social responsibilities of business enterprise might be surprised to read in the quarterly court records of Essex County, Massachusetts, among depositions of workmen employed at the ironworks, one by Henry Stick, "aged about one hundred and two years," who deposed that he was employed by John Giffard "in the mystery of coaling."7
RESTRAINTS ON DISMISSALS The master as a generalrule could not discharge a servant for an incurable illness, and he was obligated to provide him with medical, surgical, and nursing treatment when injured in his employ.8 In some jurisdictions masters were penalized for turning away servants who had not completely recovered from illness.9 On rare occasions, but without sufficient consistency to affect the general policy, the court might require the public authorities to maintain and cure the sick or injured servant.10 It is by no means clear that the government accepted responsibility for injuries to workers engaged in public works projects,11 although there is some evidence after 1776 of a willingness of town authorities to assume such responsibility.12
Notes
1 Cunningham cites instances of action by the Council in 1528, 1586, 1591, 1622, and 1623 requiring manufacturers to go on manufacturing even though there was no market for their goods. W. Cunningham, Growth of English Industry and Commerce in Modern Times (3d ed., 2 vols., Cambridge, 1903), II, 50; Leonard, Eng. Poor Relief, pp. 47-49, 147-149, 152, 153; W. S. Holdsworth, A History of English Law (Boston, 1923), IV, 380, 381 (hereafter cited as H.E.L.), See also Joan Wake, ed., Northampton Record Society (Hereford, 1924), I, 60 (1630); J. C. Atkinson, ed., North Riding Quarter Sessions, VI, 136 (1669), 148 (1670); C. E. Longmore, ed., Session Books of Hertford County (Hertford, 1935), VI, 405-407; "Manchester Sessions, 1616-1622," loc. cit., p. 106 (1620). Once the coercive authority of the Council had disappeared employers generally were no longer obliged to employ. Holdsworth, H.E.L., VI, 348, 349.
2 The penalty was 40s. R.I. Col. Rec., I, 182, 183 (1647).
3 Boston Town Rec., II, 141, 142 (1657). But cf. Abigail Littlefield's case, Suffolk G.S., lib. 1680-92, f. 302 (1686).
4 Ga. Col. Rec., XXII, Pt. I, 280 (1738).
5 Assistants, II, 120 (1642).
6 This applied also to workers who had temporarily incapacitated themselves in service. Willemsen v. Cloete, Albany, Rensselaerswyck, and Schenectady Court Minutes, trans, and ed. A. J. F. Van Laer (2 vols., Albany, 1926, 1928), II, 320, 321 (1678). The Kent County, Del., court ordered one mistress to take back her employee, "who appears not to be in his right Sences" until she could appear in person in court to give reasons for dismissing him. Cullins's case, Kent, Del., Court Rec., lib. 1699-1703, f. 18 (1700). The authorities of Georgia specifically enjoined the principal trader from discharging any of "his Men" in the Indian country from his service. Ga. Col. Rec., I, 40.
7 Essex, II, 96 (1653).
8 1. Str. 99; William Simpson, The Practical Justice of the Peace and Parish Officer (Charleston, S.C., 1761), p. 236; J. Davis, The Office and Authority of a Justice of the Peace (New Bern, N.C., 1774), p. 311; William Graydon, The Justices and Constables Assistant (Harrisburg, Pa., 1803), p. 15; J. F. Grimke, The South-Carolina Justice of the Peace, 3d ed. (New York, 1810), p. 9, and New Conductor Generalis (Albany, 1819), p. 29. By court order in 1656 New Haven differentiated between strangers, whose mishaps might have been borne by the public, and servants whose illnesses placed a responsibility on their "Governor" rather than on the colony. Assistants, H, 53 (1635); Essex, I, 109 (1646), III, 322 (1666); New Haven Town Rec., I, 58 (1650); Bucks County, Pa., C.P. (1684), (1698); Newcastle, Del., Court Rec., I, 173 (1678); Md. Arch., IV, 268 (1644), X, 452 (1656), LVII, 322 (1668). In re Laurence Evans, cf. Pcnnypacker, Pa. Col. Cases, p. 86 (1685) and Corbett's case, Md. Arch., LVII, 182, 368-369 (1667-68).
9 Laws of Barbados, 1648-1718 (Baskett ed., London, 1732), Law No. 21, d. x (1661); Acts of Assembly Passed in the Island of Jamaica, 1681-1737 (Baskett ed., London, 1738), pp. 2-5 (1681); Acts of Assembly Passed in the Charibbee Leeward Islands, 1690-1732 (Baskett ed., London, 1734), p. 160 (1716); Laws of Antigua (London, 1805), I, 185 (1716), 320 (1755). The penalty was 2,200 lbs. of sugar to be paid by the master to the overseer of the poor in Barbados; £ 20 current in Jamaica, Antigua, and South Carolina, and £ 5 in North Carolina. James Iredell, Laws of the State of North Carolina (Edenton, 1791), c. xxiv. For Florida, see Cecil Johnson, British West Florida (New Haven, 1942), p. 179.
10 Assistants, II, 125 (1642).
11 See petition of the selectmen of the district of Palmer, Mass. Arch., lib. 303 (Petitions, 1659-1786), f. 128 (1761).
12 See S.C. Gazette, Dec. 30, 1778; Pear's petition, N.Y. Common Council Rec., Jan. 29, 1785, Record Room 250, Municipal Building. No reference to this petition is in the Minutes. See also Common Council Rec, File Box 14, Bundle 4, M.C.C., 1784-1831, I, 658 (1791), where an award was made to a laborer injured in a public works project