Siding with a firefighter in a dispute with his municipal employer, the Massachusetts Appeals Court late last week ruled that the city was required to provide a firefighter with 40 days of 24-hour shift pay after he missed over 40 days nonconsecutively for military leave. On Friday, the appellate court reversed the Middlesex County Superior Court's ruling that said the city of Melrose was only required to provide 20 days of 24-hour shift pay to firefighter Robert Driscoll for missing 40 nonconsecutive days for military service. During his time as a firefighter, Driscoll served as an officer for the U.S. Air Force and reached the rank of colonel in the Air National Guard, which required him to miss numerous shifts from 2019 to 2022 for military training and active duty. He filed suit after the city paid him for 20 24-hour shifts in a consecutive 40-day period for each federal fiscal year, rather than for the 40 shifts he claimed he was owed. The city argued that it was required to pay in full only for military service within "the first 40 consecutive calendar days of an annual tour of duty." However, the court concluded that the statute in dispute, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 33, Section 59 (a), provides that service members receive "payment for 40 days of service within a federal fiscal year, regardless of whether those 40 days are consecutive." "General laws c. 33, § 59 (a), requires participating government entities to pay the full salary of an employee performing certain military service for '40 days in any federal fiscal year,' and states that a day 'shall mean any 24-hour period regardless of calendar day.' Applying the plain meaning of these words, we conclude that the firefighter is entitled to pay for up to 40 24-hour shifts missed during his military service in each federal fiscal year, and not (as the city claims) up to 20 such shifts in a consecutive period of 40 days," said Associate Justice Joseph M. Ditkoff, who authored the opinion. Chief Justice Amy Lyn Blake and Associate Justice Robert A. Brennan also agreed. In Driscoll v. City of Melrose, Driscoll was employed by the city as a firefighter from 2002 until his retirement in 2022. According to the court, the agreement between the firefighters' union and the city provides that the 24-hour shifts firefighters work are split into two separate shifts, a 10-hour day shift, and then a 14-hour shift. For purposes of vacation or sick leave, these shifts were considered separate days, amounting to two total days for one 24-hour shift, the opinion said. From October 2019 to October 2020, Driscoll missed 42 24-hour shifts while on military leave. The next fiscal year began in October 2020, and that month, Driscoll missed one 24-hour shift and one 14-hour night shift for military training. He was deployed again in November 2020 for active military service until September 2021, and missed 70 24-hour shifts. The parties disputed how many missed 24-hour shifts Driscoll should be compensated for, with the city arguing that under Section 59 (a), it was only required to pay for military service within "the first 40 consecutive calendar days of an annual tour of duty" and that a 24-hour shift counts as two days of military leave. Middlesex County Judge James Budreau agreed with the city, concluding Driscoll was only entitled to compensation for the time he would have worked during a consecutive 40-day period. On Friday, the Massachusetts Appeals Court sided with Driscoll, which maintained that the statute applies to any 40 days within a federal fiscal year, and that any 24-hour period counts as only one day of service. According to the court, Section 59 (a) provides that service members are entitled to receive pay without loss of ordinary remuneration during their service, annual training, or drills and parades, "not exceeding 40 days in any federal fiscal year," with "day" meaning any 24-hour period regardless of calendar day. The court said that the city's interpretation required it to add the word "consecutive" to the statute, which is beyond the court's authority. "The plain and ordinary meaning of G. L. c. 33, § 59 (a), is that a public employee must be compensated for 40 days of military leave per federal fiscal year, whether or not they are consecutive," Ditkoff wrote. "The operative clause, 'during service in the uniformed services, annual training under section 60 or drills and parades under section 61, not exceeding 40 days in any federal fiscal year,' does not impose any requirement that those 40 days be consecutive, rather than merely in a single federal fiscal year." The court further noted that the statute includes National Guard members under reserve service by referencing annual training or "drills and parades," which under G. L. c. Section 61 requires members to "assemble for training at least 48 times in each year" for training. The court concluded that "it is apparent that the statute presupposes that a public employee in the National Guard would apply this recurring training obligation to the statute's 40-day limit throughout a calendar year." "We are pleased that the court agreed with us that it was a simple and straightforward interpretation of the statute," said Patrick N. Bryant, of Pyle Rome in Boston, who represented Driscoll. Stephen C. Pfaff, of Louison, Costello, Condon & Pfaff in Boston, represented the city and did not immediately respond to a request for comment.