Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School Dist. RE-1
| Decision Date | 26 October 1992 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 90SC562,MONTEZUMA-CORTEZ,B,RE-1,P,90SC568,s. 90SC562 |
| Citation | 841 P.2d 237 |
| Parties | 79 Ed. Law Rep. 256 Rose MARTIN, Roberta Keck, Judith Gonzales, Ben Tolin, Paul McDonald, Robert Townsend, John Dahm, Maureen Dewey, Cheryl Carmichael, Lycinda Conger, Donna Koontz, Carol Erner, Sally Wilson, Barbara McGuire, Kathleen Cellar, Margaret Miller, Kenneth Hosmer, Frank Mascarenas, Ronald Maas, Daniel Fulks, Bruce Baylor, Jeanne Barlow, Deborah Keel, Paul Crawford, Robert Erner, Bill Cooper, Linda Allar, Kenneth Carmichael, Georgia Patcheck, Carole McWilliams, Anna Smith, Sharon Wilson, Nila Jo Schwindt, Marilyn Kirkwood, Robert Wilson, Ruby Jean Barber, Karel Miller, Janice Harding, Norma Anderson, Robert Keeler, Kim "Slim" McWilliams, and Shirley Russel, Petitioners, v.SCHOOL DISTRICTruce McAfee, Harold Gresh, Janice Hutchinson, Robert Green, Steve Chappel, Robert Cruzan, and F.K. Howerton, Respondents.SCHOOL DISTRICTetitioner/Cross-Respondent, v.EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, San Juan Basin Uniserv, a Colorado corporation, Colorado Education Association, a Colorado corporation, Rose M. Martin, Roberta J. Keck, Judith Gonzales, Roberta Keeler, Kim "Slim" McWilliams, John Dahm, James V. Lang, and James E. Mills, Respondents/Cross-Petitioners. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Larry F. Hobbs, Hornbein MacDonald Fattor and Hobbs P.C., Denver, Robert H. Chanin, John M. West, Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, D.C., for petitioners in No. 90SC562 and for respondents/cross-petitioners in No. 90SC568.
Kenneth A. DeLay, Fred C. Kuhlwilm, Miller & Delay, P.C., Westminster, for respondents in No. 90SC562.
Fred C. Kuhlwilm, Kenneth A. DeLay, Margaret M. Sickel, Miller & Delay, P.C., Westminster, for petitioner, cross-respondent in No. 90SC568.
Lauren B. Kingsbery, Denver, for amicus curiae Colo. Ass'n of School Boards.
We granted certiorari to review the court of appeals' opinion in the consolidated cases of Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1 and Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1 v. Montezuma-Cortez Education Association, 809 P.2d 1010 (Colo.App.1990). The court of appeals held: (1) that a strike by teachers of the school district was illegal; (2) that despite the strike's unlawfulness the teachers were not liable for tortious interference with the contracts between the school district and other teachers; (3) that the school district's termination of the striking teachers' employments did not violate the teachers' due process rights; and (4) that the school district's failure to follow the procedures of the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act was harmless error. We reverse in part and affirm in part.
On January 26, 1981, Rose Martin and approximately half of the teachers employed by the Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1 went on strike against the school district. Martin and the other teachers were members of the Montezuma-Cortez Education Association (MCEA). The teachers' stated purpose for striking was to compel the school district to recognize the MCEA as the exclusive bargaining agent for the teachers and to have the school district negotiate a master contract with the MCEA. The underlying motive for the pursuit of a master contract was to address or to improve teacher salaries, the quantum of hours of service required by the school district, and other working conditions such as class size and textbook purchases. At the time of the strike, most of the teachers were under individual contracts for the 1980-81 school year. Written contracts between teachers and school districts were required by section 22-63-107 of the Teacher Employment, Dismissal, and Tenure Act of 1967, sections 22-63-101--22-63-118, 9 C.R.S. (1973) (as amended) (Teacher Tenure Act). 1 These contracts provided that if "the Teacher fails or refuses to perform services as required in this Contract without the failure having been approved by the Board" of the school district, the school district may "elect to treat such failure as abandonment" of the employment contract.
In the months preceding the strike, the school district held several meetings and made several proposals to the teachers but consistently refused to recognize, or to negotiate with, the MCEA. The proposals made by the school district, falling short of recognition of the MCEA, were unacceptable to the teachers. The school district and the teachers of the MCEA thus came to an impasse in their dispute.
Before the strike, on January 6, 1981, counsel for the MCEA, pursuant to section 8-1-125(2), 3B C.R.S. (1986), notified the director of the Division of Labor (director) of the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment that a labor dispute existed between the teachers of the MCEA and the school district. Counsel for the school district countered in a letter to the director that the school district was opposed to any intervention by the director and that it would take legal action to prevent that intervention. The school district took the position that the director lacked jurisdiction to intervene in any alleged labor dispute involving the school district. The director, "[b]ased on the information provided by the parties," concluded that jurisdiction by the Division of Labor "would serve no useful purpose." By order dated January 30, 1981, nunc pro tunc January 23, 1981, the director declined to exercise jurisdiction in the dispute.
Soon after the first day of the strike, the school district sent Martin and the other striking teachers written directives demanding that they return to work and informing them that failure to do so might be considered an "abandonment" of their contracts. By February 24, 1981, half of the striking teachers returned to work. On March 6, 1981, the school district notified the teachers that hearings would be held by the school board in order to determine whether any of the individual striking teachers wished to return to work, and those ad hoc hearings commenced shortly thereafter. The striking teachers communicated to the school district their position that the hearings must conform to the requirements of the Teacher Tenure Act. The teachers also specifically denied that they had the intent to abandon their employment contracts. Only one striking teacher attended the hearings and returned to work. The other striking teachers did not attend. The school district, having determined that the teachers "voluntarily terminated" their employment and "abandoned" their contracts by striking, discharged the teachers on April 17, 1981.
To summarize the legal proceedings below, on the first day of the strike, January 26, 1981, the school district filed an action in the district court seeking to enjoin the strike and to obtain damages resulting from the strike. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction on February 2, 1981, finding the strike illegal under the common law and ordering the teachers to cease picketing and other strike-related activities. The trial court, however, did not order the teachers back to work. On June 26, 1981, the MCEA filed an action in the district court contending that the school district violated the teachers' rights under the Teacher Tenure Act and seeking damages for the unlawful dismissal.
In late 1984, the district court granted a pre-trial motion by the teachers, and ruled that the strike was legal under §§ 8-2-101 and 8-1-126, 3B C.R.S. (1986). The district court dissolved the injunction, and in January of 1985, granted partial summary judgment for the teachers on the school district's tort claims. The school district's remaining contract claims were consolidated with the teachers' action. The contract claims were voluntarily dismissed in a partial settlement, and the jury returned verdicts against the teachers on their claims for wrongful termination. On the teachers' claims, the trial court refused to give the teachers' proffered jury instruction to the effect that a "strike, by itself, is not a voluntary quitting or abandonment of employment."
The school district appealed the summary judgment on its tort claims, arguing the illegality of the strike, and the teachers appealed the judgment entered upon the jury verdicts. The court of appeals noted that "[u]nder the common law, strikes by public employees are illegal" and concluded that the trial court erred in deciding that §§ 8-2-101 and 8-1-126 "afforded [a] basis to validate the strike." Martin, 809 P.2d at 1013. The court of appeals, despite finding the strike illegal at common law, was nevertheless persuaded that "no tort liability for damages exists for public employee strikes." Id. at 1014 (). The court of appeals recognized "that imposing tort liability may be counterproductive to resolving labor disputes." Id. The trial court's dismissal of the school district's tort claim by summary judgment was therefore found by the court of appeals to be proper.
As to the teachers' claims, the court of appeals found that the trial court's denial of the school district's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was also proper. Id. The court of appeals also ruled that the teachers' due process rights were not violated by the ad hoc hearings held by the school district after the strike to determine each teacher's employment status with the school district. Id. at 1014-15. The court of appeals also ruled that while "the teachers were entitled to a directed verdict that there had been a violation of the Tenure Act in their termination," that violation was harmless error. Id. at 1015. The school district petitioned this court for writ of certiorari and the teachers cross-petitioned for writ of certiorari.
The threshold question presented is whether public employees in Colorado have the right to strike. Before today, the question has not been expressly presented to a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Agric. Labor Relations Bd.
...new public authority, the industrial commission, and empowered it to intervene in all labor disputes. ( Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1 (1992) 841 P.2d 237, 242 (Martin ).) The Colorado Act conferred on the industrial commission the power, among other things, to inquire " ‘i......
-
State v. Nieto
...that best effectuates the intent of the General Assembly and the purposes of the legislative scheme. See Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237, 246 (Colo.1992). B. Section 13-20-602 is Nieto concedes, and the State agrees, that section 13-20-602 requires a plaintiff to fi......
-
Jefferson County School Dist. No. R-1 v. Moody's Investor's Services, Inc., R-1
...activity is insufficient to establish the required element of improper conduct. For example, in Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School District RE-1, 841 P.2d 237, 251 (Colo.1992) (en banc), the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on a tortious inference with contract claim based on an ......
-
Meyer v. Lamm, 92SA472
...statutes, 'we seek to determine the intent of the legislature as expressed in the language it selected.' " Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237, 246 (Colo.1992) (quoting Triad Painting Co. v. Blair, 812 P.2d 638, 644 (Colo.1991)); A.B. Hirschfeld Press, Inc. v. City and ......
-
Consistency in Statutory Interpretation
...of the prior statute and not a new enactment, insofar as it is the same as the prior statute"); Martin v. Motezuma-Cortez School District, 841 P.2d 237, 245 (Colo. 1992), citing Davis. 22. CRS § 2-4-208. 23. Powell, supra note 20; Acad. of Charter Schs., supra note 20. 24. Colorado State Pe......
-
Educational issues and judicial oversight.
...at 1071-72. (278) Id. (279) Metzl v. Leininger, 850 F. Supp. 740, 750 (N.D. Ill. 1994). (280) See Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist., 841 P.2d 237, 247-48 (Colo. (281) See, e.g., the Colorado Supreme Court's lengthy consideration of such factors in Martin, (282) 841 P.2d at 241-51. 2s2 R......
-
Using Local Police Powers to Protect the Environment
...County of Denver, 521 P.2d 916 (Colo. 1974). 26. CRS § 30-10-516. 27. CRS § 31-4-112. 28. See Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School District, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992); Enger v. Walker Field Colorado Public Airport Authority, 508 P.2d 1245 (Colo. 1973); Colorado Chiropractic Ass'n v. Heuser, 49......
-
Overview of General Liability, Workers' Compensation, and Employment Law Issues in K-12 Educational Institutions
...[85] Id. 86 Id. [87] Littleton, 553 P.2d 793. [88] Sanes and Schmitt, supra note 80 at 9; Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez School Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992). [89] National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, "Dashboard: A Comprehensive Data Resource From the National Alliance for Publ......