Milford School Dist. v. Whiteley

Citation401 A.2d 951
PartiesMILFORD SCHOOL DISTRICT, Complainant, v. Donald P. WHITELEY, Secretary of Labor, State of Delaware, and Council 81, AFSCME, Respondents. . Heard
Decision Date06 March 1979
CourtDelaware Superior Court

On respondents' motions to dismiss complaint. Granted.

James D. Griffin, Georgetown, for Milford School Dist., complainant.

Gary A. Bryde, Deputy Atty. Gen., Wilmington, for Donald P. Whiteley, Secretary of Labor.

Harvey B. Rubenstein, Wilmington, for Council 81, AFSCME.

STIFTEL, President Judge.

Milford School District (the "District") filed a complaint seeking a writ of prohibition against Donald P. Whiteley, the Secretary of Labor (the "Secretary"). The Secretary now moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which such a writ can issue. Additionally, Delaware Public Employees Council 81, AFSCME, AFL-CIO ("Council 81") moves to intervene as a party respondent and has likewise filed a motion to dismiss.

Council 81, AFSCME was an active party before the Department of Labor and its intervention will not delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the parties. Council 81 is hereby permitted to intervene in this action as a respondent and the caption is amended to name Council 81, AFSCME as a party respondent.

The factual backdrop to this procedural question centers around the Secretary's determination of the appropriate bargaining unit for the District's custodial staff. Council 81 had petitioned the Department of Labor under 19 Del.C., Ch. 13, to establish a bargaining unit and hold an election for exclusive bargaining representative. The requested unit included the positions of custodian, custodian fireman, chief custodian I and II and night supervisor.

The Governor's Council on Labor, following a hearing, recommended to the Secretary that the bargaining unit include only the position of custodian, excluding all others. The Secretary's Decision on Case No. 203, dated December 28, 1978, rejected that recommendation and established the bargaining unit as petitioned by Council 81.

Subsequently, in connection with the District's complaint, a Superior Court Order, dated January 26, 1979, was issued which has stayed any further proceedings in this action until the present time. The Secretary and Council 81 move that this Order be vacated and the District's complaint seeking a writ of prohibition be dismissed.

The Secretary's and Council 81's motions are granted.

I.

No statutory right of appeal from the Secretary's determination of the appropriate bargaining unit is available to the District. The District contends that this factor alone justifies the issuance of a writ of prohibition.

While the inadequacy of other remedies is a prerequisite to a writ of prohibition, that factor does not automatically trigger its issuance. Rather, a two-pronged standard applies which focuses on the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower tribunal as well as on the inadequacy of remedies.

The conjunctive nature of this standard was reflected in Family Court v. Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, Del.Ch., 320 A.2d 777, 781 (1974), in which the Court held that the right to a writ of prohibition existed in that particular case because "the petitioner has asserted that the respondent is acting in excess of its jurisdictional power And because the petitioner has no remedy at law either by way of appeal or by any other legal remedy." (Emphasis added).

In sum, the extraordinary writ of prohibition is only appropriate in cases of usurpation or abuse of jurisdiction by a lower tribunal and even then only if other existing remedies are inadequate to afford relief. High, Extraordinary Legal Remedies, 553-554.

II.

The critical issue in the instant case is whether the Secretary either usurped or abused his jurisdictional authority in establishing the bargaining unit for the District's custodial employees.

A.

The District's complaint alleges that the Secretary exceeded his statutory authority. Examination of the relevant statutory language indicates that this is clearly not the case. As provided in 29 Del.C. S 8514(d):

". . . The Governor's Council on Labor shall, after hearing upon reasonable notice, Recommend to the Secretary the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, as provided in Chapter 13 of Title 19. The Secretary, in each case, Shall determine the unit appropriate for the purpose of collective bargaining, as provided in § 8501 of this title." (Emphasis added).

In the Secretary's determination of the appropriate unit, there is absolutely no requirement that he follow the recommendation of the Governor's Council on Labor.

The writ of prohibition is primarily designed to "prevent unwarranted assumption of power over persons or matters not within the legitimate cognizance of the inferior tribunal." Canaday v. Superior Court, Del.Supr., 49 Del. 456, 116 A.2d 678, 681 (1955). The Secretary did not engage in an unwarranted assumption of power over this matter which is explicitly entrusted to him by statute. He,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Paolino v. Industrial Acc. Bd.
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • February 20, 1997
    ...Quillen, J., (Jan. 10, 1997) letter op. at 6. Perhaps the case most close to the present case is Milford School District v. Whiteley, Del.Super., 401 A.2d 951 (1979), wherein Judge Stiftel granted a motion to dismiss in an action questioning a decision of the Secretary of Labor. Prohibition......
  • Wild Meadows MHC, LLC v. Weidman
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • July 10, 2020
    ...whether the lower judicial or quasi-judicial entity exceeded its jurisdiction, not whether it was a "tribunal." As a case in point, in Whiteley, this Court, after noting that a writ of prohibition is appropriate only "in cases of usurpation or abuse of jurisdiction by a lower tribunal," pro......
  • Brookview Associates Petition for A Writ of Prohibition, Matter of
    • United States
    • Delaware Superior Court
    • October 31, 1985
    ...focuses on the exercise of jurisdiction by the lower tribunal as well as on the inadequacy of remedies. Milford School District v. Whiteley, Del.Super., 401 A.2d 951, 953 (1979). The petition brought by Brookview raises issues as to the adequacy of any remedy for a search warrant/inspection......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT