City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees

• Citation: 8 Cal.App.3d 308,87 Cal.Rptr. 258
• Court: California Court of Appeals
• Decision Date: 28 May 1970
• Parties: , 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2407, 63 Lab.Cas. P 52,349 The CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 127, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 9952.

Page 258

87 Cal.Rptr. 258

8 Cal.App.3d 308, 74 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2407, 63 Lab.Cas. P 52,349

The CITY OF SAN DIEGO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 127, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

Civ. 9952.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

May 28, 1970.

[8 Cal.App.3d 309] John W. Witt, City Atty., C. M. Fitzpatrick, Chief Deputy City Atty. and Stuart H. Swett, Deputy City Atty., for plaintiff and appellant.

Bodle, Fogel, Julber & Reinhardt, and Loren R. Rothschild, Los Angeles, for defendants and respondents.

OPINION

COUGHLIN, Associate Justice.

Plaintiff, City of San Diego, appeals from that part of an order denying its application for a temporary injunction restraining defendants, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 127, and others, from engaging in a strike or work stoppage.

The complaint in the case alleges 200 employees of the Utilities Department and 600 employees of the Public Works Department of the City are members of defendant Union. The total number of employees of its Utilities Department is 600 and of its Public Works Department is 1200. Other city employees are not involved. Declarations filed in support of a temporary injunction allege the Utilities Department is responsible for providing water and sewage disposal services to the inhabitants of San Diego; the Public Works Department is responsible for the maintenance of streets, parks, public buildings, electrical systems, communications systems, parking meters and automotive equipment, for beach cleaning, erosion control and for the collection and disposal of refuse; and in the event the union employees engage in a strike or work stoppage there would be a serious disruption in water distribution and sewage disposal services, accumulation of refuse and interference with the traffic signal and safety lighting systems, all of which would result in a serious hazard to the health, safety and welfare of the city.

The City asserts the issue on appeal is whether public employees have the right to strike. The Union meets this issue and asserts the additional issue whether denial of the temporary injunction was a proper exercise of the court's discretion.

The court denied an injunction upon the ground public employees lawfully may strike.

In Almond v. County of Sacramento, 276 A.C.A. 51, 55, 80 Cal.Rptr. 518, 521 (hearing by Supreme Court denied), one of the issues presented was whether a public employee may strike and the court, after reviewing some of the cases pertinent to the issue, stated:

'Further review of cases is needless. The ruling that, absent an authorizing statute, a public employee has no right either to bargain collectively or to strike is well settled. It is settled by decisions of the Supreme Court itself and by that court's denial of hearings in courts of appeal decisions. This court (and we imply neither agreement nor disagreement) is bound by the rule.'

In California the cases on the subject have involved either the right of public employees to bargain collectively or, granted statutory authority for such, the right to strike, which is a coercive practice to compel acceptance of collective bargaining demands. All support the rule as stated in Almond v. County of Sacramento, Supra, 276 A.C.A. 51, 80 Cal.Rptr. 518. The first case upon the subject in this state was Nutter v. City of Santa Monica (1946), 74 Cal.App.2d 292, 168 P.2d 741, which reversed a ruling of the trial court mandating collective bargaining. A hearing by the Supreme court was denied. Subsequent statements of the rule occurred in City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles etc. Council (1949), 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 40, 46--47, 210 P.2d 305, affirming an order enjoining a strike by public employees (hearing by the Supreme Court denied), State of California v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen (1951), 37 Cal.2d 412, 416, 232 P.2d 857; Newmarker v. Regents of Univ. of California (1958), 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646, 325 P.2d 558; Los Angeles Met. Transit Authority v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen (1960), 54 Cal.2d 684, 687, 8 Cal.Rptr. 1, 355 P.2d 905; Pranger v. Break (1960), 186 Cal.App.2d 551, 556, 9 Cal.Rptr. 293 (hearing by Supreme Court denied), and Berkeley Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Education (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 660, 671, 62 Cal.Rptr. 515 (hearing by Supreme Court denied).

This California common law rule is the generally accepted common law rule in many jurisdictions. (International U. of Op. Eng., Loc. 321 v. Water Works Board, 276 Ala. 462, 163 So.2d 619, 620; Fellows v. La Tronica, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547, 550; Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board of Education, 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 Community Unit Sch. Dist. v. Redding, 32 Ill.2d 567, 207 N.E.2d 427, 430; State Board of Regents v. United Packing House, etc., Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 110, 112; Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745; Minneapolis Fed. of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358, 366; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539, 543, 546; City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59; Delaware River & Bay Auth. v. International Org. etc., 45 N.J. 138, 211 A.2d 789; Railway Mail Ass'n v. Corsi, 293 N.Y. 315, 56 N.E.2d 721 (affirmed 65 S.Ct. 1483); City of New York v. De Lury, 23 N.Y.2d 175, 182, 295 N.Y.S.2d 901, 906, 243 N.E.2d 128; City of Minot v. General Drivers & Helpers U. No. 74, N.D., 142 N.W.2d 612, 618; City of Cleveland v. Division 268 of Amal. Ass'n, Ohio Com.Pl., 90 N.E.2d 711, 714; International Brotherhood of Elec. Workers etc. v. Grand River Dam Auth. Okl., 292 P.2d 1018; City of Pawtucket v. Pawtucket Teachers' Alliance, 87 R.I. 364, 141 A.2d 624; City of Alcoa v. International Broth. of Elec. Wkrs., 203 Tenn. 12, 308 S.W.2d 476; So. Atl. & Gulf Coast Dist. of Longshoremen v. Harris County-Houston Ship Channel Nav. Dist., Tex.Civ.App., 358 S.W.2d 658; Port of Seattle v. International Longshore & W.U., 52 Wash.2d 317, 324 P.2d 1099; see also United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 274, 280, 67 S.Ct. 677, 687, 689, 91 L.Ed. 884; Hansen v. Commonwealth, 344 Mass. 214, 181 N.E.2d 843; Philadelphia Teachers' Association v. Labrum, 415 Pa. 212, 203 A.2d 34, 36.)

The common law fule has been adopted or confirmed statutorily by 20 states and the federal government. (See City of New York v. De Lury, supra, 23 N.Y.2d 175, 182, 295 N.Y.S.2d 901, 905, 243 N.E.2d 128; 5 U.S.C.A. § 7311.)

The reasons for the rule are many; apply public policy; relate generally to the fundamental differences between private and public employment as regards the processing and settlement of labor demands and disputes; take into account the authority of the public employer respecting both the method for fixing and the substance of the terms and conditions of public employment is limited to that prescribed by law; include a consideration of the overriding duty of the public employer to perform prescribed governmental functions; and furnish a constitutionally approved basis for classification in the premises. (Gen. see Nutter v. City of Santa Monica, Supra, 74 Cal.App.2d 292, 297--298, 168 P.2d 741; Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n. v. Board of Education, Supra, 138 Conn. 269, 83 A.2d 482; State Board of Regents v. United Packing House etc., Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 110, 112; City of New York v. De Lury, Supra, 23 N.Y.2d 175, 182--187, 295 N.Y.S.2d 901, 906, 909, 243 N.E.2d 128; City of Minot v. General Drivers & Helpers U. No. 74, Supra, N.D., 142 N.W.2d 612, 619; gen. see 31 A.L.R.2d 1142.) Of particular significance is the fact the employer-employee relationship in public employment is the product of law--constitutional, legislative and decisional--rather than the product of a contract as in private employment. (State of California v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen, Supra, 37 Cal.2d 412, 416--417, 232 P.2d 857; City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles etc. Council, Supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 48, 210 P.2d 305; Perez v. Board of Police Comm'rs., 78 Cal.App.2d 638, 647, 178 P.2d 537; Nutter v. City of Santa Monica, Supra, 74 Cal.App.2d 292, 297--302, 168 P.2d 741; see also Fellows v. La Tronica, Supra, 151 Colo. 300, 377 P.2d 547, 550; Wichita Public Schools Emp. U., Local No. 513 v. Smith, Supra, 194 Kan. 2, 397 P.2d 357, 359--360.) The terms and conditions of public employment are fixed by the public through the processes of law, and acceptance of such employment requires acceptance of the processes by which the terms and conditions of employment are fixed, i.e., by law rather than by contract (City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles etc. Council, Supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 47, 210 P.2d 305); confers benefits not available to the private employee which are the roduct of the processes of law, such as civil service tenure status and a vested right to retirement benefits (gen. see Kern v. City of Long Beach, 29 Cal.2d 848, 850, 179 P.2d 799; Abbott v. City of San Diego, 165 Cal.App.2d 511, 517, 332 P.2d 324); but also imposes a distinct responsibility attendant upon public service (City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles etc. Council, Supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 48--49, 210 P.2d 305; Perez v. Board of Police Comm'rs., Supra, 78 Cal.App.2d 638, 651, 178 P.2d 537); and results in the relinquishment of certain rights enjoyed by private employees. (Board of Education v. Swan, 41 Cal.2d 546, 556, 261 P.2d 261; City of Los Angeles etc. Council, Supra, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 48--49, 210 P.2d 305; Perez v. Board of Police Comm'rs., Supra, 78 Cal.App.2d 638, 651, 178 P.2d 537; City of Springfield v. Clouse, Supra, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539, 542.)

The foregoing concepts are not...