Atkins v. City of Charlotte, Civ. No. 2274.
Decision Date | 25 February 1969 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 2274. |
Citation | 296 F. Supp. 1068 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina |
Parties | Jesse E. ATKINS, T. W. Arant, J. B. Atkins, John Auten, C. R. Bacot, Lewis Bacot, et al., Plaintiffs, and International Association of Fire Fighters, an International Labor Union, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation; Walter J. Black, Chief of City of Charlotte Fire Department; John E. Ingersoll, Chief of City of Charlotte Police Department; Elliott M. Schwartz, Solicitor of 14-A Solicitorial District, Defendants. |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. LeVonne Charbers, Chambers, Stein, Ferguson & Lanning, and Reginald S. Hamel, Charlotte, N. C., for plaintiffs.
H. L. Riddle, Jr., Riddle & McMurray, Morganton, N. C., for plaintiff-intervenor.
William W. Van Alstyne, Durham, N. C., amicus curiae.
Before CRAVEN, Circuit Judge, and JONES and WARLICK, District Judges.
This is a civil action brought to obtain a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief declaring unconstitutional and preventing enforcement of Sections 95-97, 95-98 and 95-99 of the General Statutes of North Carolina. We hold G.S. 95-97 unconstitutional on its face. We hold G.S. § 95-98 a valid and constitutional exercise of the legislative authority of the General Assembly of North Carolina. As for G.S. § 95-99, we hold it to be so related to G.S. § 95-97 that it cannot survive the invalidation of that section.
Counsel have not been able to agree on findings of facts. We have carefully examined their separate submissions, and, although we note variances, we are more impressed with the similarities. The differences are almost entirely those of degree and emphasis, and, we think, are without legal significance. From the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, exhibits, briefs and statements of counsel, the court finds the facts to be a follows:
FACTS
The statutes sought to be invalidated are these:
All of the plaintiffs are members of the Charlotte Fire Department, and the gist of the complaint is that the statutes are overbroad and prohibit constitutionally guaranteed rights of the plaintiffs in violation of the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Specifically, plaintiffs want to become dues paying members of a Local which would become affiliated with International Association of Fire Fighters, the intervenor. Affidavits of some 400 fire fighters of the Charlotte Fire Department have been put into evidence to the effect that, if allowed to do so by law, affiants would join the Union.
The City of Charlotte is a municipal corporation which operates and maintains the Charlotte Fire Department pursuant to the City Charter. The Chief of the Department is appointed by the City Council and is accountable to the Council for the faithful performance of his duties. He is responsible for the discipline and efficiency of the Department and for carrying out all orders, rules and regulations approved by the Council. He is also responsible for approving all promotions of members in the Department subject to the approval of the Civil Service Board.
The Department has approximately 438 employees, consisting of the Chief, two assistant chiefs, 14 deputy chiefs, 60 fire captains, and 56 fire lieutenants, with the remainder being fire fighters, inspectors, fire alarm personnel and office personnel. The plaintiffs consist of deputy chiefs, captains, lieutenants and fire fighters and range in service with the department from two to 40 years.
For many years prior to the enactment in 1959 of the North Carolina General Statutes complained of, the International Association of Fire Fighters operated or maintained a union made up of Charlotte Fire Department members and designated as Local 660, an affiliate of the International Association of Fire Fighters. A number of Fire Department members paid dues to that organization which was engaged in collective bargaining activity. Further, the City checked off dues for union membership.
During 1959, the North Carolina Legislature enacted General Statutes §§ 95-97 through 95-99. Following the enactment of these statutes, Local 660 terminated its affiliation with the International Association of Fire Fighters and became, or took the name, Charlotte Fire Fighters Association. This organization continued the activities and representations very much as had been the practice with Local 660. The Fire Fighters Association continued to negotiate with the City and to represent the Charlotte firemen with respect to wages, grievances, and other conditions of employment, and the City continued its recognition of the association and permitted dues check-off. This practice continued from 1959 until 1962. On January 29, 1962, the City Council received and approved a report compiled by the City Manager. One of the recommendations of this report as it was approved established as a condition of continued employment in the Fire Department non-membership in the Fire Fighters Association or in any successor thereto. The City Council approved this report after having been advised by the City Attorney that the Fire Fighters Association was not illegal per se under the statutes complained of, but that the association and its recognition by the City was in violation of public policies of the State. Sometime after this action on the part of the City Council, the Fire Fighters Association terminated its activities and the City discontinued its recognition and dues checkoff. A grievance procedure was established to allow individual employees to process grievances, but no provisions were made for group grievance procedure or for collective bargaining with respect to grievances, wages, and conditions of employment.
During March of 1967, members of the Charlotte Fire Department, the plaintiffs herein, organized the Charlotte Firemen's Assembly. This organization has as its purpose collective bargaining with the City of Charlotte with respect to wages, grievances, hours of employment and other conditions of employment. It would like to become a local affiliate of intervenor but is prevented by the statutes. The Firemen's Assembly has not been recognized by the City as a representative of firemen.
We resolve all procedural questions and pleas in bar against the defendants:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lopez v. Williams
...v. City of Lawton, 425 F.2d 1037 (10th Cir. 1970); Schnell v. City of Chicago, 407 F.2d 1084 (7th Cir. 1968); Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296 F.Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C.1969); Cf. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. supra at 191, n. 50, 81 S. Ct. 473.10 Applying this rationale some courts have held that a......
-
POLICE OFFICERS'GUILD, NAT. U. OF POL. OF. v. Washington
...of Letter Carriers v. Blount, supra; Melton v. City of Atlanta, 324 F.Supp. 315 (N.D.Ga.1971) (three-judge court); Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296 F.Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C.1969) (three-judge Finally, the defendants urge Section 4-125 is not an "Act of Congress" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.......
-
Adams v. Harris County, Texas
...200 U.S. 248, 26 S.Ct. 245, 50 L.Ed. 464 (1906); Brown v. Marshall County, Kentucky, 394 F.2d 498 (6th Cir. 1968); Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296 F.Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C. 1969—3 judge court); Schultz v. Greater New Orleans Expressway Comm., 250 F. Supp. 89 (E.D.La.1966); and N. M. Paterson ......
-
Johnson v. City of Albany, Ga.
...in the activities of labor unions, Melton v. City of Atlanta, 324 F.Supp. 315 (N.D.Ga.1971) (three judge court); Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296 F.Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C.1969) (three judge court). Likewise they cannot be penalized for advocating the right of public employees to strike or for ......
-
Public Meeting Statutes and Public Sector Collective Bargaining
...AFSCME v. Woodward, 406 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1969); McLaughlin v. Tilendes, 398 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1968); Atkins v. City of Charlotte, 296 F. Supp. 1068 (W.D.N.C. 1969). Would a public body's grant of exclusive recognition without an election impair this constitutional right? If there were an......