City of Springfield v. Clouse

• Decision Date: 10 November 1947
• Docket Number: 40127
• Citation: 206 S.W.2d 539,356 Mo. 1239
• Parties: City of Springfield, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Harry Clouse, Robert Laxton, Otto Bowles, R. F. Walters, O. F. Bruhn, C. O. Scroggins, T. J. Musgrave, Fred Guinn, James K. Gilmore, Gene Parsons, J. Frank Cline, Lester Wimmer, Ralph Holly, E. J. Barrett, M. E. Taber, and Richard Groom
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

206 S.W.2d 539

356 Mo. 1239

City of Springfield, Missouri, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, v. Harry Clouse, Robert Laxton, Otto Bowles, R. F. Walters, O. F. Bruhn, C. O. Scroggins, T. J. Musgrave, Fred Guinn, James K. Gilmore, Gene Parsons, J. Frank Cline, Lester Wimmer, Ralph Holly, E. J. Barrett, M. E. Taber, and Richard Groom

No. 40127

Supreme Court of Missouri

November 10, 1947

Appeal from Greene Circuit Court; Hon. Warren L. White Judge.

Reversed and remanded (with directions).

Theodore Beezley and A. P. Stone, Jr., for appellant.

(1) It is well-settled rule of statutory construction that unless an act specifically mentions the city, said act shall not be construed so as to include it. 25 R.C.L., sec. 32, p. 784; 49 Am. Jur., secs. 14, 15, pp. 235, 236; 59 C.J. 653, p. 1103; City of Clinton ex rel. Thornton v. Henry County, 115 Mo. 557, 22 S.W. 494; Petrucci v. Hogan, 27 N.Y.S. (2d) 718; Nutter v. Santa Monica, 168 P.2d 741; Balthasar v. Pacific Elec. Ry. Co., 187 Cal 302, 202 P. 37, 19 A.L.R. 452; United States of America v United Mine Workers of America, an unincorporated association; United States of America v. John L. Lewis individually and as President of the United Mine Workers of America; United Mine Workers of America, an unincorporated association, v. United States of America; and John L. Lewis individually and as President of the United Mine Workers of America v. United States of America; United Mine Workers of America, an unincorporated association, and John L. Lewis, individually and as President of the United Mine Workers of America, v. United States of America, 91 Law Ed., Advance Opinion, p. 595; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. Miami, 26 So.2d 194, 167 A.L.R. 967; State ex rel. Buchanan County v. Imel, 242 Mo. 293, 146 S.W. 783. (2) The intention of the Constitutional Convention, by its Debates, was that Section 29 of Article I of the Missouri Constitution, 1945, would not apply to the state and municipal employees or affect the then existing relationship of municipal employees and employer. Debates of the Constitutional Convention, pp. 1934, 1935, 1936, 1941, 1961, 1963. (3) Repeal by implication is not favored. Hull v. Baughman, 131 S.W.2d 721; State ex rel. St. Louis Police Relief Assn. v. Igoe, 107 S.W.2d 929. (4) Section 29 of Article I of the Constitution of Missouri does not apply to municipal officers. Secs. 6673, 6674, R.S. 1939; Kirby v. Nolte, 349 Mo. 1015, 164 S.W.2d 1; State ex rel. Pickett v. Truman, 333 Mo. 1018, 64 S.W.2d 105; Gracey v. St. Louis, 213 Mo. 384, 111 S.W. 1159; People ex rel. Van Valkenburg v. Myers, 11 N.Y.S. 217. (5) The term "collective bargaining" as generally understood does not apply to municipal employees. Labor Unions and Municipal Employe Law, pp. 69-71; Nutter v. Santa Monica, 168 P.2d 741; City of Cleveland v. Division 268 of the Amalgamated Assn. of Streets, Electric Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of America, 15 Ohio Supp. 76; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Maimi, 26 So.2d 194, 167 A.L.R. 967. (6) The oath taken by a city employee would conflict with the oath and obligations taken by an employee becoming a member of a labor union. Sec. 6673, R.S. 1939; Sec. 2, Art. I, Mo. Constitution; Fourteenth Amend. U.S. Constitution. (7) Under Section 6614, R.S. 1939, the council shall be vested with all powers of legislation in municipal affairs touching every object within the purview of the local self-government conferred upon every city of the second class. Any bargaining with the labor unions would be an unlawful delegation of legislative powers that is mandatorily vested in the council alone. Sec. 6614, R.S. 1939; City of Cleveland v. Division 268 of the Amalgamated Assn. of Streets, Electric Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of America, 30 Ohio Law Rep. 395, 15 Ohio Supp. 76; Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 44 A.2d 745; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. Maimi, 26 So.2d 194, 167 A.L.R. 967. (8) Each of the four proposed agreements, and any collective bargaining agreement that might be entered into, would constitute an unconstitutional, unlawful and unauthorized delegation of public power and authority to labor unions who are private organizations and who are not responsible to the electorate and over which there is no public control. Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 44 A.2d 745; Maimi Water Works Local No. 654 v. Maimi, 26 So.2d 194, 167 A.L.R. 967; McQuillin, Mun. Corps. (2d Ed. Rev.), secs. 393, 394, 395, 519, 1271; City of Cleveland v. Division 268 of the Amalgamated Assn. of Streets, Electric Ry. & Motor Coach Employees of America, 30 Ohio Law Rep. 395, 15 Ohio Supp. 76. (9) The council does not have discretionary power as to wages, hours, manner and method of hiring, method of discharging, promotions, demotions, vacations, sick-leave, or any type of working condition. Therefore, all these things being governed by statute or ordinance, there is nothing to bargain for as the term "collective bargaining" is generally understood. Sub-secs. 3, 4, Sec. 39, Art. III, Constitution of Missouri; Sec. 6609, sub-sec. XXV, R.S. 1939; Secs. 6613, 6614, 6615, 6617, 6652, 6659, 6669, 6671, 6672, 6678, 6679, 6680, 6681, 6682, 6683, 6684, 6685, 6686, 6687, 6688, 6842, R.S. 1939; General Ordinance No. 360, City of Springfield, passed May 26, 1945; General Ordinance No. 361, City of Springfield, passed May 26, 1945; General Ordinance No. 214, City of Springfield, passed April 21, 1942; Sec. 5, Chap. 1, Revised Ordinances of Springfield, 1936; Hagerman v. City of Dayton, 71 N.E.2d 246. (10) A city cannot enter into a contract unless the same be within the scope of its powers or be expressly authorized by law. Sec. 3349, R.S. 1939; Sub-secs. 3, 4, Sec. 39, Art. III, Constitution of Missouri, 1945, 133 Mo.App. 328, 112 S.W. 979, affirmed 240 Mo. 187, 144 S.W. 1198. (11) The powers of a city, including the power to make contracts, is defined and limited by law. Sec. 15, Art. VI, Constitution of Missouri, 1945. (12) The city has only the power and authority expressly granted to it by the Legislature, under its charter, or any power that might be necessarily or fairly in or incident to the powers expressly granted, and any fair and reasonable doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the city and the power is denied. Dillon, Mun. Corp. (3d Ed.), sec. 89; State ex rel. City of Hannibal v. Smith, 335 Mo. 825, 74 S.W.2d 367; State ex rel. City of Blue Springs v. McWilliams, 335 Mo. 816, 74 S.W.2d 363; Sec. 3349, R.S. 1939; Sub-secs. 3, 4, Sec. 39, Art. III, Constitution of Missouri, 1945. (13) The trial court erred in finding and declaring in his opinion that the city could recognize the union as the bargaining agent for those employees who are members of the union. The legislative deliberations and functions of the city council would be influenced and controlled by the labor unions which would be an unlawful delegation of legislative power and authority. McQuillin, Mun. Corps. (Rev. Vol. 1), secs. 393, 395; Edwards v. Kirkwood, 147 Mo.App. 599, 127 S.W. 378; Fred Wolferman Bldg. Co. v. General Outdoor Advertising Co., 30 S.W.2d 157; City of St. Louis v. Polar Ice & Fuel Co., 317 Mo. 907, 296 S.W. 993; Bigelow v. Springfield, 178 Mo.App. 463, 162 S.W. 750; State v. Field, 17 Mo. 529. (14) The city council would be discriminating in favor of union employees and against non-union employees in violation of the civil service statutes, and would deny equal protection of the law in violation of the Constitution of Missouri, Section 2, Article I, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Missouri Constitution, Sec. 2, Art. I; Fourteenth Amend., U.S. Constitution; Secs. 6678-6688, R.S. 1939; Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 44 A.2d 745. (15) "Collective bargaining" means a written contract and a contract with any labor union would be unilateral and unenforceable by the city in law or equity and therefore illegal, unauthorized and void. Clark v. Grand Lodge of Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 328 Mo. 1084, 43 S.W.2d 404; Aalco Laundry Co. v. Laundry Linen, U.L. No. 336, 113 S.W.2d 1081, 115 S.W.2d 89; Forest City Mfg. Co. v. International L.G.W. Union, 111 S.W.2d 934; Graham v. Grand Division Order of Ry. Conductors, 107 S.W.2d 121; Cole County v. Central Mo. Trust Co., 302 Mo. 222, 257 S.W. 774. (16) The trial court erred in finding and declaring in his opinion that the city could legally deduct union dues from the wages of city union members and pay the dues so deducted to the union each month; and by further declaring that this would be an assignment of employees' wages, and that there was no city charter provision forbidding same. In this state, as in other states, the assignment by a city officer or employee is contrary to public policy and void, and the courts will not enforce such an agreement. Nelson v. Townsend, 132 Mo.App. 390, 111 S.W. 894; State v. Williamson, 118 Mo. 146, 23 S.W. 1054, 21 L.R.A. 827; Beal v. McVicker, 8 Mo.App. 203; State ex rel. K. C. Loan Guaranty Co. v. Kent, 98 Mo.App. 281, 71 S.W. 1066; Hagerman v. City of Dayton, 71 N.E.2d 246. (17) The city would be a collection agency at the taxpayers' expense and this would be illegal. Mervin v. Chicago, 45 Ill. 133. (18) The trial court erred in finding and declaring in his opinion that the city could bargain as to the number of days' labor required each week. The city council has the exclusive power to fix the number of days worked each week. Sec. 6615, R.S. 1939. (19) The city must have an express power to bargain before it can bargain collectively on any matter. Collective bargaining means a written agreement and the trial court erroneously started off with the wrong premise when he said Section 29, Article I...