Section 48. Every employer of labor engaged in carrying on any manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment or workshop in the commonwealth shall allow every person, except those specified in section fifty, but including watchmen and employees maintaining fires, employed in such manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment or workshop at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest, which shall include an unbroken period comprising the hours between eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in the evening, in every seven consecutive days. No employer shall operate any such manufacturing, mechanical or mercantile establishment or workshop on Sunday unless he has complied with section fifty-one. Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine of three hundred dollars.
Notes of Decisions
Weems v. Citigroup Inc., 900 N.E.2d 89 (Mass. 2009).
“154, § 8, states: “None of the foregoing sections of this chapter, nor [G. L. c. 149, § 48,] shall be applicable to or control or prohibit the deduction of labor or trade union or craft dues or obligations, or making deposits in, purchasing shares of, or for the repayment of any…”
Crown Kosher Super Mkt. of Mass., Inc. v. Gallagher, 176 F. Supp. 466 (D. Mass. 1959).
· cites it 2× “G.L. c. 149, § 48, imposing upon employers of labor the obligation to see to it that their employees are allowed "at least twenty-four consecutive hours of rest, which shall include an unbroken period comprising the hours between eight o'clock in the morning and five o'clock in…”
Chiappetta v. Lyons, 1999 Mass. App. Div. 276 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div. 1999).
“This is an action to recover for the defendant’s failure to pay wages in violation of G.L.c. 149, §48, failure to pay overtime in violation of G.”
Drexler v. Tel Nexx, Inc., 125 F. Supp. 3d 361 (D. Mass. 2015).
“law, Mass. Gen. Laws c. 149 § 48. Rather than enjoying one day of rest per week, Mr.”
Kinch v. Dir. of the Div. of Emp. Sec., 506 N.E.2d 169 (Mass. App. Ct. 1987).
· cites it 5× “See G. L. c. 149, § 48. 1 The examiner seems to have grasped the import of the plaintiff’s complaint, 2 but nothing *81 came of it, perhaps because the plaintiff was then appearing pro se and obviously had no idea of how to go about asserting his rights.”
Bujold v. EMC Corp., 23 Mass. L. Rptr. 347 (Mass. Super. Ct. 2007).
· cites it 12× “Bujold contends that EMC violated G.L.c. 149, §48 by compelling him to work more than six consecutive days without a day off, and violated G.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.