City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild

• Citation: 131 A.2d 59,100 N.H. 507
• Parties: CITY OF MANCHESTER v. MANCHESTER TEACHERS GUILD et al.
• Decision Date: 30 April 1957
• Court: Supreme Court of New Hampshire

Page 59

131 A.2d 59

100 N.H. 507

CITY OF MANCHESTER v. MANCHESTER TEACHERS GUILD et al.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire.

Argued Feb. 20, 1957.

Decided March 26, 1957.

Rehearing Denied April 30, 1957.

J. Francis Roche, City Sol., Manchester, for plaintiff.

McLane, Carleton, Graf, Greene & Brown and Jack B. Middleton, Manchester, for defendants.

LAMPRON, Justice.

The only issue involved on this appeal is the correctness of the ruling made by the Trial Court that public school teachers do not have the right to strike against the city and that such a strike is illegal and subject to injunction.

This strike was found by the Court to have been conducted in a completely peaceful manner, without violence, picket lines, disturbances or damage to person or property. Its purpose was to obtain salary increases. The Court's ruling that the existence of individual annual teaching contracts with each teacher was not material to its decision has not been challenged by any of the parties. The law appears to be settled however, that if such contracts were of employment for a term subsisting at the time of the strike, the strike would be illegal. Reynolds v. Davis, 198 Mass. 294, 84 N.E. 457, 17 L.R.A.,N.S., 162; International Union, U. A. W., A. F. of L., Local 232 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, 259-260, 69 S.Ct. 516, 93 L.Ed. 651; 1 Teller Labor Disputes and Collective Bargaining, § 86; 31 Am.Jur., 'Labor,' § 198, p. 932. Apart from any contracts for a stated term however, and if this strike had occurred in the course of negotiations between a private employer and his employees it would not have been subject to injunction because of its lawful purpose and the reasonableness of its execution. In re Opinion of the Justices, 86 N.H. 597, 599, 166 A. 640; Dorchy v. State of Kansas, 272 U.S. 306, 311, 47 S.Ct. 86, 71 L.Ed. 248; MacCormack, A National Labor Policy, 31 B.U.L.Rev. 297, 298. See Grimes v. Durnin, 80 N.H. 145, 114 A. 273; White Mt. Freezer Co. v. Murphy, 78 N.H. 398, 101 A. 357.

If this strike was properly enjoined it must be because public policy renders illegal strikes by school teachers in public employment. Although that question has not been decided heretofore by this court other jurisdictions have held that public employees have no right to strike against the government be it federal, state, or a political subdivision thereof. Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Education, 138 Conn. 269, 83 A.2d 482, 31 A.L.R.2d 1133; City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Bldg. & C. Tr. Council, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 210 P.2d 305; City of Detroit v. Division 26 of A. A. of S. E. R. & M. C. E. of A., 332 Mich. 237, 248-252, 51 N.W.2d 228; Annotation, 31 A.L.R.2d 1146.

It would serve no useful purpose to detail the many reasons which support this policy. Absence of the profit motive on the part of the public employer and the necessity that there be no interruption in the operation of public functions because of the serious consequences which would ensue are some of them. However like the common law doctrine of the State's immunity from liability for any negligence of its agents or servants while engaged in a governmental function, Cushman v. Grafton County, 97 N.H. 32, 79 A.2d 630, as well as its immunity from suit, Moore v. Dailey, 97 N.H. 278, 86 A.2d 342: D'Amours v. Hills, 96 N.H. 498, 79 A.2d 348, the underlying basis for the policy against strikes by public employees is the doctrine that governmental functions may not be impeded. Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Education, supra; Spero, Collective Bargaining in the Public Service, 248 Annals 146-150.

'In the American system, sovereignty is inherent in the people. They can delegate it to a government which they create and operate by law. * * * The government so created and empowered must employ people to carry on its task. Those people are agents of the government. They exercise some part of the sovereignty entrusted to it. They occupy a status entirely different from those who carry on a private enterprise. They serve the public welfare and not a private purpose. To say that they can strike is the equivalent of saying that they can deny the authority of government and contravene the public welfare.' Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Education, supra, 138 Conn. 276, 83 A.2d 485. This doctrine does not violate any constitutional rights of public employees. Dorchy v. State of Kansas, supra; Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 95, 65 S.Ct. 1483, 89 L.Ed. 2072. See United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884; Adler v. Board of Education, 342 U.S. 485, 492, 72 S.Ct. 380, 96 L.Ed. 517.

In the light of the increase in public employment, the disparity existing in many cases in the salary of public employees as compared to similar positions in private employment, and the enactment in recent years of legislation guaranteeing the right of private employees to bargain collectively and to strike, it may seem anomalous and unfair to some that government should deny these same rights to its employees working in similar employment, 36 Va.L.Rev. 258, 259. However any modification in the common law doctrine that the sovereignty of the state should not be hampered by strikes by public employees involves a change in public policy. It has been the consistent opinion of this court that such a change is for the Legislature to determine rather than being within the province of the court. Glover v. Baker, 76 N.H. 393, 83 A. 916; Heath v. Heath, 85 N.H. 419, 159 A. 418; Levesque v. Levesque, 99 N.H. 147, 149, 106 A.2d 563; 37 Cornell L.Q. 756, 761.

The only enactment by the Legislature on this subject is Laws 1955, c. 255 which amended RSA 31:3 by adding to the powers of towns and cities the power to 'recognize unions of employees and make and enter into collective bargaining contracts with such unions.' RSA 31:3 (Supp.). This legislation removed the doubt previously existing as to the...