Harford County Educ. Ass'n v. Board of Ed. of Harford County, 80

• Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
• Citation: 380 A.2d 1041,281 Md. 574
• Docket Number: No. 80,80
• Parties: , 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728 HARFORD COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al. v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY.
• Decision Date: 09 December 1977

Page 574

281 Md. 574 380 A.2d 1041, 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2728 HARFORD COUNTY EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al.
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HARFORD COUNTY. No. 80. Court of Appeals of Maryland. Dec. 9, 1977.

[380 A.2d 1043]

Page 576

John W. Hardwicke, Baltimore (Richard W. Emory, Jr., and Walter S. Levin, Baltimore, on the brief), for appellants.

F. Ford Loker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore (Francis B. Burch, Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Edwin H. W. Harlan, Jr., State's Atty. and Peter C. Cobb, Asst. State's Atty., for Harford County, Bel Air, on the brief), for appellee.

Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and SMITH, DIGGES, LEVINE, ELDRIDGE and ORTH, JJ.

SMITH, Judge.

In this case we have before us for the first time a charge that school teachers are in criminal contempt of one of the courts of this State. The matter arises from the alleged failure of certain teachers to obey the terms of an ex parte injunction issued by a circuit judge in Harford County (Close, J.) as a result of a work stoppage. He found them to be in contempt and levied fines accordingly. We shall affirm his determination.

A strike of public school teachers in Harford County began on Tuesday, May 11, 1976. On the morning of May 12 the Board of Education of Harford County filed a petition in the Circuit Court for Harford County against Harford County Education Association (the Association) and others seeking a declaratory decree "that a strike by the certificated professional teachers of the Board or a concerted withholding of or refusal to perform services by such teachers (was) illegal." It also asked for a permanent injunction restraining the named defendants, "all certificated professional teachers employed by the Board," and others "from engaging in a strike against or concertedly withholding or refusing to perform[380 A.2d 1044] services for the Board or from calling, directing, inducing, encouraging or ordering any employee of the Board or any other persons to engage in or assist in calling or directing a strike against . . . the Board." A permanent injunction was likewise sought against picketing or otherwise delaying or interfering with "the normal operations of the free public schools of Harford County." The petition prayed that, pending final hearing and determination of the issues,

Page 577

an ex parte injunction might be issued along the lines of the requested permanent injunction.

Named as defendants in the petition were the Association, Margaret Hughes, Eddie L. Robinette, Charles Meese, Helen Davis, Mary P. King, Nathan Moore, Eleanor D. Hammond, Clarence Morey, Anthony Sarcone, Elizabeth Feeney, Everett Sillers, Maryland State Teachers Association, Inc., John F. Burke, Charles H. Wheatley, Robert L. Haugen, and Chet Elder (Elder). Messrs. Burke, Wheatley, and Haugen were all returned non est. No return was made as to Maryland State Teachers Association, Inc. (the State Association). Those three individuals and the State Association are not parties to this proceeding. All of the other named defendants are appellants here. All of the individuals other than Elder were teachers (the Teachers) in Harford County. Miss Hughes and Messrs. Robinette and Meese were sued in their individual capacities and as president, first vice-president, and second vice-president of the Association, respectively. Miss Feeney and Mr. Sillers were sued individually and as representatives of the General Council of the State Association. The remaining individual teacher defendants were sued individually and as members at large of the Association. The Teachers were all members of the board of the Association. Elder was an employee of the State Association assigned to Harford County and employed by the Association as a consultant on leave from the State Association. He was sued individually and as "Field Service Representative" of the State Association. Relative to Elder the trial judge said in his opinion:

"He testified that his job was one of directing the activities and to provide a more aggressive direction. He was the professional strike leader. He had been involved in the election of the County Executive on behalf of the teachers and in salary requests of the teachers of Harford County for a lengthy period of before and up to and including the teachers' strike."

The chancellor met with counsel for the Board and counsel for the Association on May 12. At 9:33 a. m. on that date an

Page 578

ex parte injunction was issued. The court's order referred to the fact that the defendants named were "collectively, concertedly and individually participating in" a strike which was interfering "with the normal operation of public schools of Harford County," that there appeared "to be a present danger that immediate, substantial and irreparable injury" would result if such conduct were permitted to continue which would include "intolerable disruption to the lives of some 33,600 school children and their families, the economic waste of operating costs to the County and the taxpaying public, and the disruptions generally affecting the peace, safety, good order, general welfare, and morals of the community . . . ." It said that "the granting of an Ex Parte Injunction under th(o)se circumstances (would) result in less damage to the Defendants than the failure to grant such an injunction would cause to Plaintiff." It then directed that the named defendants and others, including "all certificated professional teachers employed by the Board," be "enjoined and restrained from engaging in a strike against, or concertedly withholding and refusing to perform services for the Board or from calling, directing, inducing, encouraging or ordering any employee of the Board or any other persons to engage in or assist in calling or directing a strike against or withholding and refusing to perform services for the Board . . . ." The defendants were further ordered to "take whatever affirmative action (was) necessary to bring about a cessation of the strike . . . ." By its terms the order [380 A.2d 1045] was to expire on May 24 unless a request was made before that day for an extension for a longer period of time. The petition for permanent injunction was set for hearing on May 24 with the proviso "that Defendants m(ight) move for an earlier hearing on not more than two (2) days notice" in accordance with Maryland Rule BB72 b. No such motion was ever made.

Counsel for the Association testified that sometime between 1:30 and 2:30 in the afternoon of May 12 she met with Miss Hughes, the president of the Association, at which time counsel advised of the issuance of the injunction and discussed the matter with Miss Hughes. All of the individual parties here were served on May 13. Elder was served at 5:25

Page 579

a. m. The last party served appears to have been Mrs. Hammond who appeared at the sheriff's office to accept service at 1:00 p. m. on May 13. The attorney for the Association met with the Association's entire executive board around noon on Thursday, May 13. She testified that she discussed the injunction with them "so that they were fully aware of what it meant, what it said, and what to do."

At about 10:30 a. m. on Friday, May 14, the teachers agreed to return to work. They actually returned to classes the following Monday.

Rule P4 a provides, "Constructive contempt proceedings may be instituted by the court of its own motion . . . ." Rule P4 b 1 provides that if the court determines to cite a defendant for contempt a show cause order shall be issued which "shall state the time and place of hearing, allowing a reasonable time for the preparation of the defense, and shall state the essential facts constituting the contempt charged." Rule P4 d 1 states that in such event the court "may designate the State's attorney or any other member of the bar to prosecute the proceeding."

The docket entries reflect:

"May 24, 1976 Matter taken up before the Court (Judge Close) on Pltf's Motion for Ex Parte Injunction. Parties appeared. No action taken. Appearance of Susan Russess (sic), Esq. entered (Short) for Deft. (on motion)."

The next docket entry after May 24 was on August 17. It shows the filing of what was called "Statement of Essential Facts Constituting Constructive Contempt and Show Cause Order Pursuant to Rule P4 of The Maryland Rules of Procedure." On that date there were in fact two statements filed by the chancellor who had issued the original temporary restraining order. One concerned only those teachers who are parties here other than those who were officers of the Association. It recited their employment as public school teachers in Harford County, the strike, the issuance of the temporary restraining order, its timely service, and their absence from their assigned duties until the termination of

Page 580

the strike on May 17, referring specifically to their absence on May 11, 12, 13, and 14. The second statement was directed at the Association, Elder, and Miss Hughes. It, too, recited the strike, the issuance of the temporary restraining order, and its timely service. It referred to the fact that Miss Hughes was absent from her assigned duties as a public school teacher during the same period. It cited statements by Miss Hughes and Elder prior to the issuance of the injunction to the effect that they would ignore any court order; a statement by Miss Hughes after the issuance of the injunction that "the strike will continue"; a publication by the Association which noted the issuance of the injunction and spoke of the importance of contacting nonstrikers, urging them to join the strikers; and a meeting between Elder and the Superintendent of Schools on May 13 at which Elder indicated that he "would call off the strike that afternoon because an economic proposal offered to him was acceptable, but he did not then take the actions necessary to call the strike off after the proposal was withdrawn . . . ." In each instance the parties were directed to show cause on or before...