Anderson Federation of Teachers, Local 519 v. School City of Anderson
Decision Date | 01 October 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 868S121,868S121 |
Citation | 252 Ind. 558,251 N.E.2d 15 |
Parties | , 72 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2466, 37 A.L.R.3d 1131 ANDERSON FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, LOCAL 519, Appellant, v. SCHOOL CITY OF ANDERSON, A. George Harrison, C. Devar Litten, Evelyn J. Byrum, Fred L. Matthews, John L. Childes, as Members of the Board of Education of the School City of Anderson, Madison County, Indiana, State of Indiana, Appellees. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Paul E. Schrenker, Henry P. Schrenker, Anderson, Frank E. Spencer, Robert Robinson, Indianapolis, for appellant.
William Byer, Robert W. Miller, Anderson, for appellees.
On May 6, 1968, the Superior Court of Madison County found the appellant, Anderson Federation of Teachers, Local 519, in contempt of court for the violation of a restraining order which had been issued without notice on the 2nd day of May, 1968, directing the appellant, teachers' union, and its members to refrain from picketing and striking against the appellee school corporation. It is from this judgment of contempt that this appeal is taken.
The appellant is an organization of public school teachers employed by the appellee.
The appellee is a municipal corporation organized under the statutes of this state for the purpose of operating the public schools within the boundaries of the School City of Anderson, Indiana.
In the spring of 1968 the appellant and the appellees entered into negotiations concerning salary schedules for the following year. These negotiations apparently were not satisfactory to the appellant for on May 1, 1968, the appellant instituted a strike against the school corporation and established picket lines at the various schools operated by appellee. Evidence discloses that school children were unloaded in the public streets because of the presence of the picket lines. It was this action of picketing by the appellant which precipitated the temporary restraining order issued on May 2, 1968, and it was the continuation of this activity without regard for the restraining order upon which the trial court based its judgment after a hearing on May 6, 1968, that the appellant was in contempt of court for violating the restraining order.
The trial court was in all things correct in its finding and judgment of contempt of court.
It is the contention of the appellant that Indiana's 'Little Norris-LaGuardia Act,' also known as the anti-injunction statute, the same being Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 40--501 et seq., is applicable in this case. This act prohibits the issuance of restraining orders and injunctions in matters involving labor disputes between unions and private employers. We do not agree with the appellant that this act is applicable to disputes concerning public employees. The overwhelming weight of authority in the United States is that government employees may not engage in a strike for any purpose.
The Supreme Court of the United States clearly enunciated the proposition that public employees did not have a right to strike and that the injunctive processes might properly be used to prevent or halt such strikes in the case of United States v. United Mine Workers (1947), 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884. This case has never been overruled or modified. The decision was later followed by Justice Goldsborough of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the case of United States v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (1948), 79 F.Supp. 485, certiorari denied 335 U.S. 867, 69 S.Ct. 137, 93 L.Ed. 412.
In the United Mine Workers case it was contended that the specifications in Section 13 of the statute are in general terms and make no express exception of the United States, thus it was argued the restraining order and injunction were forbidden by the act and wrongfully issued. In dealing with this argument the Supreme Court of the United States, beginning 330 U.S. at page 272, 67 S.Ct. at page 686 of the official opinion, stated:
The Court, however, did not rely entirely upon the above proposition, but, in addition, went on to observe as follows:
We are in total accord with the above language and hold that it is equally applicable to the Indiana statute.
This same proposition has been followed generally in most of the other state jurisdictions where it has been repeatedly held that strikes by public employees are or should be prohibited and that injunctions should be granted to halt or prevent them. For reference see the following cases:
City of Minot v. General Drivers and Helpers Union (1966), N.D., 142 N.W.2d 612;
New Jersey Turnpike Authority v. American Federation et al. (1964), 83 N.J.Super. 389, 200 A.2d 134;
Donevero v. Jersey City Incinerator Authority (1962), 75 N.J.Super. 217, 182 A.2d 596;
Hansen v. Commonwealth (1962), 344 Mass. 214, 181 N.E.2d 843;
City of Pawtucket v. Pawtucket Teachers Alliance (1958), 87 R.I. 364, 141 A.2d 624;
City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild (1957), 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59;
City of Alcoa v. Int'l Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (1957), 203 Tenn. 12, 308 S.W.2d 476;
City of Detroit v. Division 26 et al. (1952), 332 Mich. 237, 51 N.W.2d 228;
Miami Waterworks Local No. 654 v. City of Miami (1946), 157 Fla. 445, 26 So.2d 194, 165 A.L.R. 967.
We find only one case where an injunction to prevent a pending strike of public employees was denied. That case was Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. Public School Employees Union (1951), 233 Minn. 141, 45 N.W.2d 797, 29 A.L.R.2d 424. That case, however was overruled in 1966 by the Supreme Court of Minnesota in Minneapolis Federation of Teachers Local 59, AFL-CIO v. Obermeyer, supra.
The Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum in 1968 circulated a publication entitled MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEE NEGOTIATIONS AND STRIKES in which they point out that almost without exception the state and federal courts hold that strikes by public employees are illegal.
The publication also quotes from a letter written by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to the President of the National Federation of Federal Employees on August 16, 1937, in which he said:
In a New York Supreme Court case Justice Emilio Nunez in granting an injunction against striking teachers made the following observation:
'Upon the signing of the Condon-Wadlin Act, Governor Dewey stated, in part, that 'Every liberty enjoyed in this nation exists because it is protected by a government which functions uninterruptedly. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees
...138 Conn. 269, 83 A.2d 482; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445, 26 So.2d 194; Anderson Fed. of Teach. v. School City of Anderson, Ind., 251 N.E.2d 15, 17; Wichita Public Schools Emp. U., Local No. 513 v. Smith, 194 Kan. 2, 397 P.2d 357, 359--360; Board of Ed. of ......
-
County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. Los Angeles County Employees' Assn.
...and utilities; in many employment fields, public and private activity largely overlap. In a dissenting opinion in Anderson Fed. of Teach. v. School City of Anderson, supra, Chief Justice DeBruler of Indiana observed that the source and management of most service enterprises is irrelevant to......
-
Joint School Dist. No. 1, City of Wisconsin Rapids v. Wisconsin Rapids Educ. Ass'n
...p. 916, sec. 1471.10 See, e.g., City of Albuquerque v. Campos (1974), 86 N.M. 488, 525 P.2d 848; Anderson Federation of Teachers v. School City of Anderson (1969), 252 Ind. 558, 251 N.E.2d 15, rehearing denied 254 N.E.2d 329, certiorari denied, 399 U.S. 928, 90 S.Ct. 2243, 26 L.Ed.2d 794, a......
-
City of Albuquerque v. Campos
...act does so apply. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947); Anderson Fed. of Teach. v. School City of Anderson, 252 Ind. 558, 251 N.E.2d 15 (1969), reh. denied, 252 Ind. 558, 254 N.E.2d 329 (1970); City of Minot v. General Drivers & Helpers U. No. 74, ......