Labor Relations Commission v. Boston Teachers Union, Local 66
| Decision Date | 28 December 1977 |
| Citation | 374 Mass. 79,371 N.E.2d 761 |
| Parties | , 97 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2507 LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION v. BOSTON TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 66, et al. Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
John F. McMahon, Boston, for defendants.
Stuart A. Kaufman, Mass. Labor Relations Comm., Boston, for plaintiff.
Before HENNESSEY, C. J., and BRAUCHER, WILKINS, LIACOS and ABRAMS, JJ.
This is an appeal from a series of judgments entered in the Superior Court, Suffolk County, in which the Boston Teachers Union, Local 66 (union), and five individual defendants, as representatives of a class of defendants, were found to be in civil contempt of certain orders of the court. Those orders concerned labor negotiations between the union and the School Committee of Boston (committee). The court assessed fines against both the union and the individual defendants. In addition, the court assessed costs to the union under Mass.R.Civ.P. 54, 365 Mass. 820 (1974). The union and five of the named defendants, Henry Robinson, Joan Buckley, Philip Pirrone, Thomas Gosnell, and Charles McGowan, appealed from these judgments to the Appeals Court. We transferred the case here on our own motion.
We affirm the judgments of contempt as to the union and as to the individual defendant, McGowan. As to the individual defendants Robinson, Buckley, and Gosnell, we affirm the judgments of contempt except as to those judgments based on a finding of violation of a temporary restraining order (described below) relating to the distribution of so called "sanction" sheets. We reverse the judgment of contempt as to Pirrone, it being based solely on a finding of violation of the temporary restraining order (paragraph C) dealing with the "sanction" sheets, and similarly reverse the judgments based on alleged violations of paragraph C by the defendants Robinson, Buckley, and Gosnell.
1. This case is an outgrowth of apparently difficult negotiations between the union and the committee for a collective bargaining agreement to cover the 1975-1976 school term. Before negotiations were concluded the union struck the city school system.
At a meeting of the union membership held on September 2, 1975, the membership voted to commence a strike on September 22, 1975, unless the committee made an acceptable contract offer prior to that time. At that same meeting the membership also authorized the union's executive board to draw up a list of sanctions that would be taken against union members who failed to abide by the majority decision to strike the school system should the negotiations be unsuccessful.
As a result of the action taken at the meeting, the committee filed a petition on September 12 with the Labor Relations Commission (commission) for a strike investigation under G.L. c. 150E, § 9A(b). Such an investigation was conducted. The commission, on September 17, issued an interim order which contained findings that a strike was threatened and that union representatives had "encouraged and condoned" such action. The commission ordered, inter alia, that the union "cease and desist from encouraging or condoning the threatened strike." The order was later modified in portions not relevant on this appeal.
During the pendency of the commission's investigation, Robinson and Buckley caused to be distributed on September 16 and 17 so called "fact sheets" detailing the progress or lack thereof in the negotiations. These "fact sheets" contained a notice of a membership meeting for September 21, at which time the last offer of the committee was to be presented for either ratification or rejection. The notice then stated that, if the offer was rejected, the union would strike beginning Monday, September 22. On September 18, the union distributed the sanction sheet authorized at the September 2 meeting and drawn up by the executive board in accordance with the membership's authorization.
Also on September 18 the commission, alleging that neither the union nor the committee was complying with its previous order, commenced a civil action in the Superior Court. The complaint sought to enjoin the parties to the negotiations from failing to comply with the orders. A judge of the Superior Court issued preliminary injunctions enforcing the commission's orders.
The next day, September 19, another judge of the Superior Court amended the previously issued preliminary injunction, apparently to conform to the specificity requirements of Mass.R.Civ.P. 65(d), 365 Mass. 832 (1974). The amended injunction incorporated, inter alia, so much of the commission's earlier orders as sought to enjoin the union from "encouraging or condoning the threatened strike."
The commission again went to court on September 19 with a motion to amend its complaint and an application for a temporary restraining order. The amendment, in apparent compliance with Mass.R.Civ.P. 23.2, 365 Mass. 769 (1974) (), was allowed; it named Robinson, union president, and Buckley, executive vice-president, individually and as representative defendants of a class consisting of the "officers, agents and members of the Union and other employees represented by the Union." The restraining order provided, in relevant part, that the defendants were to be temporarily restrained from: "(a) striking, engaging in a work stoppage, or work slowdown or any other conduct proscribed by G.L. c. 150E, s. 9A(a); (b) instigating, authorizing, ratifying or threatening any of the above acts; (c) making any future threats or taking any action with respect to past threats, in connection with, or otherwise imposing any sanctions or punishments against Union Members and Employees represented by the Union who cross a Union picket line or who fail or refuse to strike, to engage in a work stoppage or work slowdown or other conduct proscribed by G.L. c. 150E, s. 9A(a)."
The next crucial event occurred at the membership meeting of September 21. At that meeting, which was chaired by Robinson, the unanimous recommendation of the union negotiating team to reject the committee's latest offer was approved by the membership pursuant to a motion made by Buckley. No separate vote was taken on the strike issue nor did either Robinson or Buckley take any action to inform the membership about the consequences of their effectuating the earlier strike resolution.
On Monday, September 22, the threat of the strike was realized and picket lines were established at Boston schools. Thereupon, the commission filed a petition to have the defendants held in contempt of court. In addition to the union, the petition named Robinson, Buckley, and two other union officers, as well as Gosnell, McGowan, Pirrone and other members of the executive board. The petition alleged (1) that the union membership had adopted Robinson's recommendation to reject the proposal; 1 (2) that the union was engaged in a strike proscribed by c. 150E, § 9A(a); (3) that the named individual defendants authorized and ratified the strike; (4) that, as a result of this action, picket lines had been established at several schools and the delivery of education had been impaired; (5) that the defendants' conduct constituted "a willful and undoubtful disobedience of this Court's clear and unequivocal commands, contained in its Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order."
Hearings on the contempt petition were held on September 23, 25, 29, 30, and October 16. The defendants did not contest the findings of contempt on the part of the union; rather they argue that it was error for the court to impose fines on the union as an entity. That issue will be discussed in due course. The basic issue raised in this appeal, however, is whether the court was justified in finding the five named defendants in contempt of the orders of the court. For the sake of clarity the facts underlying the adjudication of each shall be stated separately.
A. Henry Robinson. Robinson was found in contempt of so much of the preliminary injunction as enjoined him from "encouraging or condoning" the strike action and so much of the temporary restraining order as sought to prohibit him from "instigating, authorizing, ratifying or threatening" any strike, work stoppage or slowdown or other conduct proscribed by c. 150E, § 9A(a), prior to September 23. For these actions he was fined $1,000. In addition, he was held in contempt for his actions relative to the sanction sheet in violation of the temporary restraining order, but was purged of the contempt by subsequently complying with an order of the court issued on September 23. 2
The record indicates that the basis of the contempt finding with regard to the strike was Robinson's failure, in his roles as chairman of the membership meeting and president of the local, to bring to the attention of the membership at the September 21 meeting the fact that the court had issued an order against the strike scheduled for the next day, or to suggest that the membership rescind its September 2 strike resolution. That the court viewed this duty as implicit in the earlier court orders is made clear by the judge's statement: "You say it was a perfunctory performance as officer . . . as Chairman of the meeting and, . . . if I agree with you that is his sole function, that he has no higher responsibility or duty, that would be the end of paragraphs B and C of the temporary restraining order." A similar rationale formed the basis of the contempt adjudication relative to Robinson's failure prior to September 23 to disavow the so called "sanction sheet."
B. Joan Buckley. Buckley was found in contempt for violating the same provisions of the outstanding orders as was Robinson. Like the union president, she was fined $1,000 for those actions in the period after the issuance of the orders but prior to September 23, and similarly was found to have purged herself of any contempt with respect to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Town of Manchester v. Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
...not be disturbed on appeal unless they are clearly erroneous. Mass.R.Civ.P. 52(a), 365 Mass. 816 (1974). See Labor Relations Comm'n v. Boston Teachers Local 66, 374 Mass. 79, 92 a, 371 N.E.2d 761 Our review of the evidence presented below persuades us that it is sufficient to support each o......
-
Massachusetts Elec. Co. v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
...within the statutory definition of "person." See Labor Relations Comm'n v. Boston Teachers Local 66, --- Mass. ---, --- - --- c, 371 N.E.2d 761 (1977). To qualify as a "person aggrieved," a person must allege substantial injury as the direct result of the action complained of. Boston Edison......
-
Markham v. Fay
... ... Fine, 623 N.E.2d at 1139; Boston Safe Deposit and Trust Co. v. Stone, 348 Mass ... ...
-
Demoulas v. Demoulas Super Markets, Inc.
...proper where defendant had no reasonable basis for doubting meaning of judge's order); Labor Relations Comm'n v. Boston Teachers Union, Local 66, 374 Mass. 79, 89, 371 N.E.2d 761 (1977) (contempt appropriate where plain meaning of terms put defendants on notice that certain acts would be ba......