American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 298 v. City of Manchester

• Decision Date: 30 November 1976
• Docket Number: LOCAL,AFL-CI,No. 7341,7341
• Citation: 116 N.H. 665,366 A.2d 874
• Parties: , 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2283, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,072 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,298 v. CITY OF MANCHESTER et al.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

Page 874

366 A.2d 874

116 N.H. 665, 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2283, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,072

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 298 v. CITY OF MANCHESTER et al.

No. 7341.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Nov. 30, 1976.

James J. Barry, Jr., Manchester, for plaintiff.

Elmer T. Bourque, City Sol., Manchester, for city of Manchester, Dept. of Traffic, and Aldermanic Traffic Committee.

LAMPRON, Justice.

Bill in equity by the plaintiff to enjoin the defendants from refusing to recognize and abide by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement between the plaintiff and the department of highways of the city of Manchester. This argument, dated May 5, 1969, was to be in force for at least one year and was to continue from year to year thereafter subject to termination upon 30-days notice. Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiff's bill because there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the city of Manchester with respect to the employees of its department of traffic. Hearing before Perkins, J., who granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Plaintiff's exceptions to the granting of this motion and to the denial of its motion to set aside the verdict were reserved and transferred.

The issue presented is whether the separation of the traffic division from the department of highways, and the creation of a separate department of traffic comprised of the same personnel terminated the rights and benefits of those employees under the collective bargaining agreement of May 5, 1969.

The department of highways of the city of Manchester is under the direction of its highway commission. When the agreement of May 5, 1969, was entered into, the highway department consisted of several divisions one of which was the traffic division. By Laws 1969, ch. 623 the city was authorized to establish a department of traffic to be administered by the members of the traffic committee of its board of mayor and aldermen. This change was effectuated by means of a referendum held in November 1969, in which the voters gave their approval. Effective January 1 1970, all the personnel of the traffic division of the department of highways, then employees and their superintendent, were transferred to and constitute the new department of traffic. All were members of plaintiff's Local No. 298 except the superintendent, Henry D. Brinn.

An important purpose of collective bargaining agreements is to avoid industrial strife between employers and employees by establishing terms governing the employment relationship. These are terms to which both parties have agreed, and it is the understanding and expectation of the parties that they will both respect and be bound by these terms. Shulman, Reason, Contract, and Law in Labor Relations, 68 Harv.L.Rev. 999, 1001 (1955); see Laws 1975, 490:1. The 'Labor Management Relations Act, 1947' does not apply to any State or political division thereof. 29 U.S.C. § 152(2) (Supp.1975). However, judicial decisions under that Act can be of considerable assistance in interpreting collective bargaining agreements such as that of May 5, 1969, with which we are concerned. See Windsor v. Windsor Police Department Employees Ass'n, 154 Conn. 530, 536, 227 A.2d 65, 68 (1967). Hence decisions pertaining to the survival of collective bargaining contracts in the event of a change of employers are particularly helpful.

An ordinary contract will not bind an unconsenting successor to a contracting party. See 15 S. Williston, Contracts § 1870 (Jaeger ed. 1972) however, this is not true of a collective bargaining contract which is intended to regulate all the aspects of the complicated relationship between employer and employees. United Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U.S. 574, 578-79, 80 S.Ct. 1347, 4 L.Ed.2d 1409 (1960). The contract between the plaintiff and the highway department covered, among other matters, wages and hours, promotions and transfers, causes for discharge, seniority, grievance procedures, annual vacations and many other topics. Even without the compulsion of a statute, such contracts should continue in force, if the circumstances warrant it, when there is a substantial continuity of identity in the enterprise before and after a change in employers. See John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 551, 84 S.Ct. 909, 11 L.Ed.2d 898 (1964). See also NLRB v. Burns International Security Services, Inc., 406 U.S. 272, 291, 92 S.Ct. 1571, 32 L.Ed.2d 61 (1972). Where there is little change in the employment relationship, such continuity furthers the expectations of the parties to the collective bargaining agreement and is desirable in that it maintains...