Independent School Dist. No. 89 of Oklahoma County v. Oklahoma City Federation of Teachers, Local 2309 of American Federation of Teachers

• Decision Date: 10 June 1980
• Docket Number: AFL-CIO,Nos. 54235,54554,s. 54235
• Citation: 612 P.2d 719,1980 OK 89
• Parties: 110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2602, 1980 OK 89 INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, a Public Body Corporate, Appellee, v. The OKLAHOMA CITY FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 2309 OF the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS,, an Unincorporated Association; et al., Appellants, (two cases).
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 719

612 P.2d 719

110 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2602, 1980 OK 89

INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 89 OF OKLAHOMA COUNTY, a Public Body Corporate, Appellee, v. The OKLAHOMA CITY FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 2309 OF the AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, an Unincorporated Association; et al Appellants, (two cases).

Nos. 54235, 54554.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 10, 1980.

Appeal by the Oklahoma City Federation of Teachers from Order of the District Court of Oklahoma County arising from declaratory judgment action which enjoined the Oklahoma City School District from recognizing the Federation as bargaining agent during a strike; and from a subsequent order of modification of the injunction which imposed sanctions upon the Federation beyond the period of the strike.

JUDGMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED AS TO ISSUANCE OF THE ORIGINAL INJUNCTION AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; REVERSED AS TO THE IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF THE STRIKE.

Eric J. Groves, Oklahoma City, for appellees.

Kenneth R. Nance, Oklahoma City, for appellants.

SIMMS, Justice:

These appeals arise from litigation generated by last year's teachers' strike in Oklahoma City. In these companion cases we are asked to review two orders of the district court which affect the legal status of the Oklahoma City Federation of Teachers, (OCFT), to act as the bargaining agent for the area educators. In both appeals, the appellants are the OCFT, and appellees are the Independent School District No. 89 and the individual members of the school board, hereafter referred to as District.

In both appeals the issue presented is the proper construction of the duration of sanctions imposed by 70 O.S.1971, § 509.8, on a bargaining representative once that organization or its members engage in a strike.

The statute, in its entirety, provides:

"The procedure provided for herein for resolving impasses shall be the exclusive recourse of the professional organization. It shall be illegal for the professional organization or the nonprofessional organization to strike or threaten to strike as a means of resolving differences with the board of education. Any member of the professional or nonprofessional organization engaging in a strike shall be denied the full amount of his wages during the period of such violation. If the professional or nonprofessional organization or its members engage in a strike, then the organization shall cease to be recognized as representative of the professional or nonprofessional educators and the school district shall be relieved of the duty to negotiate with such organization or its representatives."

The relevant facts are these. The District initially sought, through an action for declaratory judgment, a judicial determination of the respective rights and obligations of District and OCFT in light of the existing teachers' strike. Based upon its finding that OCFT, the recognized representative of the educators, and its members were in violation of § 509.8, and that OCFT had thereby forfeited its right to act as bargaining agent, the court on September 18, 1979, awarded District the following temporary injunctive relief: OCFT was enjoined from acting as bargaining agent for educators employed by District; District was enjoined from recognizing OCFT as bargaining agent and from negotiating with OCFT; and District was enjoined from paying wages to any teacher who did not report for duty but engaged in the strike. The appeal from this declaratory relief is the substance of 54,235.

On September 25, OCFT filed a petition with the District for election of a bargaining representative for the teachers and for its name to appear on the ballot. The District sought relief from the district court which was denied; the court ordered OCFT placed on the ballot notwithstanding the facts that the strike had ended and that the temporary injunctions remained in full force and effect. The order specifically did not make any finding or determination of what the status of OCFT would be after the election. The election was held October 30 and OCFT was certified the winner and majority choice of teachers to act as their bargaining representative.

The District thereafter sought declaratory relief as to whether it could now recognize the OCFT without violating the court's temporary injunctions. The district court found that it had been divested of jurisdiction in the matter based on the appeal of the temporary injunction to this Court. Upon application, we assumed original jurisdiction and, exercising superintending control over the district court, returned the matter for that court's determination of: (1) the effect, if any, that the court's injunction enjoining recognition of OCFT had upon recognition of OCFT as bargaining representative in light of its re-election; and (2) the duration of sanctions imposed upon bargaining representatives by § 509.8.

Pursuant to that order the district court held a hearing and decided those questions in the following manner: (1) that the re-election of OCFT did not affect the injunction; and (2) that OCFT should suffer some "retribution" for engaging in an illegal teachers' strike and that a suitable period of duration for retributive sanction would be until December 31, 1980. The court therefore ordered the temporary injunction enjoining OCFT from acting as bargaining representative to continue until December 31, 1980. That order is the subject of the appeal in 54,554.

At this point we stress that we must address the appeals in the posture in which they came to this Court. The sole relief sought by the District was by way of declaratory judgment defining the rights, duties and obligations of the parties. The District did not seek to enjoin the strike or attempt to compel the striking teachers to return to the classroom through the office of a mandatory injunction. We are therefore not presented with any question concerning punishment imposed as and for contempt for violation of a court order.

The statute is ambiguous as to the duration for which a professional organization shall cease to be recognized. The particular provision in question reads:

"If the professional or nonprofessional organization or its members engage in a strike, then the organization shall cease to be recognized as representative of the professional or nonprofessional educators and the school district shall be relieved of the duty to negotiate with such organization or its representatives."

With arguments to support their respective views, the parties submit that possible constructions of the time period for which the bargaining agent would cease to be recognized and the district relieved of its duty to negotiate, are: (1) during the period of the strike; (2) until a new election is held; (3) forever; or (4) for a fair and equitable period established by a trial judge exercising his discretion. The variety of possible interpretations underscores the necessity for judicial construction to establish the meaning and scope of the statute.

Both parties concede that this is a case of first impression in Oklahoma and that no other state has a statute which reads like our § 509.8.

The cardinal rule in construing legislation is that the intention of the Legislature, when ascertained, must govern, and that to ascertain that intent all the various portions of the legislative enactments upon the particular subject, including subsequent enactments should be construed together and given effect as a whole. Appeal of Price, 88 Okl. 156, 212 P. 424 (1923).

In construing statutes, harmony, not confusion, is to be sought and when parts of an act are reasonably susceptible of a construction which will give effect to both and to the words of each, without violence to either, such construction should be adopted in preference to one which, though reasonable, leads to the conclusion that there is a conflict. Rogers v. Oklahoma Tax Commission, Okl., 263 P.2d 409 (1953).

The purpose of the 1971 Act, 70 O.S.1971, §§ 509.1, et seq., creating methods for negotiations between school employees and districts and providing for election of a bargaining representative of the employees, is clearly expressed in § 509.1 as a means to "strengthen methods of administering employer-employee relations through the establishment of an orderly process of communications between school employees and the school district." The mode of "communication" is mandated to be through a professional organization elected by the educators as their bargaining agent. The election procedures created by the Legislature to implement the Act are of great importance in resolving the issue before us. Section 509.2, as originally enacted, Oklahoma Session Laws, ch. 325, § 2 (70 O.S.1971, § 509.2) provided only generally that the "local board of education shall recognize a professional organization" securing authorization signed by a majority of professional educators employed by the district; that the bargaining representatives of the organization "shall be elected by a majority of the professional educators" at "an election called after proper notice is given" to the educators and that the organization shall be the exclusive representative of the educators.

In 1978 the statute was amended, Laws 1978, ch. 221, § 1, now 70 O.S.Supp.1979, § 509.2, to provide in greater detail the method and procedure for choosing professional organizations in school districts with an average daily attendance of 35,000. The amended provisions, applicable to Oklahoma City, set forth in much more specific detail, among other things, the manner and procedure for calling and conducting elections.

Of particular significance to the problem before us, is the fact that § 509.2 now provides that after the first election held under the (1978) Act, "(n)o election shall be directed to be held by a local board in a bargaining unit within which a valid election was held in the preceding two (2) years." § 509.2(C)1. This...