City of Minot v. General Drivers and Helpers Union No. 74 of Minot

• Decision Date: 12 May 1966
• Docket Number: No. 8312,8312
• Parties: 62 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2283, 54 Lab.Cas. P 51,524 The CITY OF MINOT, a municipal corporation of the State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION NO. 74 OF MINOT, North Dakota, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Sylvan Hubrig, as business representative and agent of the said union and Secretary-Treasurer thereof, James Boger, an employee of the City of Minot as steward of said union representing employees of the City of Minot who may be members of said union, and All members of said union who are employees of the City of Minot, as representatives of the class to which they belong, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 612

142 N.W.2d 612

62 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2283, 54 Lab.Cas. P 51,524

The CITY OF MINOT, a municipal corporation of the State of

North Dakota, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENERAL DRIVERS AND HELPERS UNION NO. 74 OF MINOT, North

Dakota, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America,

Sylvan Hubrig, as business representative and agent of the

said union and Secretary-Treasurer thereof, James Boger, an

employee of the City of Minot as steward of said union

representing employees of the City of Minot who may be

members of said union, and All members of said union who are

employees of the City of Minot, as representatives of the

class to which they belong, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 8312.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

May 12, 1966.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Chapter 34--08, N.D.C.C., known as the 'Little Norris-LaGuardia Act,' does not apply to a public employer.

2. Chapter 34--11, N.D.C.C., providing for mediation of disputes between public employers and employees, does not require the inference that strikes and picketing by public employees are lawful means of securing a settlement of a labor dispute.

3. Section 34--09--01, N.D.C.C., containing a declaration of public policy relative to the rights of workers, does not apply to public employees.

4. When city employees engaged in various services, including the collection of garbage, sewer and water services, and the maintenance of streets, went on strike and picketed in support thereof, it was imperative and therefore proper that injunctive relief be granted to prevent the obstruction of the governmental function of the city.

5. A strike by city employees is illegal.

6. Picketing, though peaceful, when for the purpose of fostering and supporting an illegal strike against a governmental employer, is for an unlawful purpose and is enjoinable.

Walter O. Burk, Williston, for appellants.

Bosard, McCutcheon & Coyne, Minot, for respondent.

ERICKSTAD, Judge.

This is an appeal by the defendants, General Drivers and Helpers Union No. 74 of Minot North Dakota, affiliated with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America; Sylvan Hubrig, as business representative and agent of the said union and Secretary-Treasurer thereof; James Boger, an employee of the City of Minot as steward of said union representing employees of the City of Minot who may be members of said union; and all members of said union who are employees of the City of Minot, as representatives of the class to which they belong, from a judgment of the District Court of Ward County. For ease of description the defendants will hereafter be referred to as the Teamsters.

Representatives of the City of Minot and the Teamsters met several times during March, April, and May 1965 for the purpose of negotiating a labor contract to go into effect June 1, 1965, when the existing contract was to terminate. In June 1965 a contract acceptable to the negotiators was submitted to the parties. The Teamsters found it acceptable, but the City objected to the inclusion of a dues checkoff provision.

When additional meetings of the representatives met with no success in resolving the City's objection, the Teamsters on June 22, 1965, requested mediation of the dispute pursuant to Chapter 34--11, N.D.C.C. As a result, a representative of the Teamsters and a representative of the City were appointed, and these two met a number of times for the purpose of agreeing on the third member of the board. Three different persons were agreed on, but none of these persons would accept the appointment. On July 16, 1965, before a third member had agreed to serve on the board, the Teamsters went on Strike. In addition to remaining away from work, the employee union members also picketed the Public Works Building.

The City then initiated this action, seeking to enjoin the Teamsters from striking, from work stoppage, and from picketing. The complaint alleged, among other things, that the Teamsters unlawfully and illegally and in contravention of Chapter 34--11 caused City employee members of the union to leave their employment and commence picketing; that the picketing was continuing that as a result the sanitation and refuse trucks of the City were not operating; and that by virtue of these acts the health and safety of the residents of the City were endangered.

The City asked for a temporary restraining order to prohibit the Teamsters from picketing, alleging the picketing resulted in work stoppage causing irreparable damage to the City. An order to show cause why the temporary restraining order should not be made permanent was also requested.

The court accordingly issued a temporary restraining order and an order to show cause why the temporary restraining order should not be made permanent. On July 22, 1965, the day set for a hearing on the order to show cause, the case was continued to permit the parties to make further efforts to form a mediation board.

The mediation board which was ultimately formed rendered a divided report, the majority recommending that the dues checkoff provision be retained in the contract. When this recommendation was not accepted by the City, a hearing was held on August 18, 1965, on the order to show cause why the temporary restraining order should not be made permanent. This resulted in a judgment of the district court permanently enjoining the Teamsters 'from further engaging in a strike, work stoppage, or picketing against the City.' The Teamsters have appealed from this judgment and demand trial do novo.

The issues on this appeal, as stated by the Teamsters, are whether employees of a city may strike against the city and, if not, whether a permanent injunction may be granted to prohibit such a strike.

All agree that our statutes do not expressly prohibit nor expressly permit public employees to strike.

In support of their contention that public employees may strike, the Teamsters cite the following sections of the Code:

34--09--01. Declaration of public policy.--The public policy of this state is declared to be that a worker shall be free to decline to associate with his fellows and shall be free to obtain employment wherever possible without interference or being hindered in any way, but that he shall also have the right to association and organization with his fellow employees and designation of representatives of his own choosing. A contract made and entered into between an employer of labor and a worker or workers or any agent, bargaining agent or representative of a worker or workers shall be binding and equally enforceable upon both parties to said contract. Elections by secret ballot held to determine the question of who shall be the bargaining representative of a worker or workers or whether a worker or workers shall strike against an employer shall be free and impartial without being influenced by either an employer or worker or any third parties. Secondary boycotts and sympathy strikes are hereby declared to be against public interest and unlawful.

'North Dakota Century Code.

35--08--02. Declaration of public policy.--For the purpose of the interpretation of the provisions of this chapter, the public policy of this state is declared to be that a worker of this state shall be free to decline to associate with his fellows, but that he also shall have full freedom of association, self organization, and designation of representatives of his own choosing to negotiate the terms and conditions of his employment, and that he shall be free in such matters, as well as in other concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, from interference, restraint, or coercion by employers of labor or their agents.

North Dakota Century Code.

They say that these statutes are all-inclusive and make no exceptions as to municipal employees.

They argue that there would have been no reason for the enactment of Chapter 34--11, which provides for the mediation of disputes between public employers and employees, if, failing settlement through mediation, the public employees were to be prohibited from striking.

On the ground that Chapter 34--08 applies to a dispute between public employees and the public employer, they contend that the commission of the acts of which the City herein complains, namely, striking and picketing, does not justify the issuance of an injunction. They specifically refer the court to subsections 1 and 5 of § 34--08--05, which read as follows:

34--08--05. Acts which may not be enjoined or restrained.--No court of this state shall issue issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute from doing, whether singly or in concert, any of the following acts:

1. Ceasing or refusing to perform any work or to remain in any employment relationship;

5. Giving publicity to the existence of, or the facts involved in, any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking, patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence * * *.

North Dakota Century Code.

They further contend that the City has failed to comply with the provisions of § 34--08--07, which reads as follows:

34--08--07. Basis upon which restraining order or injunction may be issued.--No court of this state shall issue a restraining order or a temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of a labor dispute except after hearing the testimony of witnesses in open court in support of the allegations of a complaint made under oath and the testimony offered in opposition thereto, and the granting to opposing parties of the right to cross-examine such witnesses, and except after the court has made and filed with the records in the case findings of fact to the effect that:

1. Unlawful acts have been...