Minneapolis Fed. of Teachers Local 59 v. Obermeyer, AFL-CI
| Decision Date | 09 December 1966 |
| Docket Number | R,AFL-CI,Nos. 40477,No. 1,1,s. 40477 |
| Citation | 147 N.W.2d 358,275 Minn. 347 |
| Parties | MINNEAPOLIS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 59,espondent, v. Peter OBERMEYER, State Labor Conciliator, and Board of Education, Special School Districtof Minneapolis, Respondents, City of Minneapolis Education Association, Appellant. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, Respondent, v. MINNEAPOLIS FEDERATION OF TEACHERS LOCAL 59,espondent, City of Minneapolis Education Association affiliated with Minnesota Education Association, Appellant. & 40478. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. A statute should not be construed so as to extend its provisions to cover that which is specifically excluded by the legislature.
2. L.1965, c. 839, § 7 (Minn.St.179.572), which excepts teachers from the application of several sections of the so-called Public Employees Labor Relations Act, Minn.St. 179.50 to 179.58, is not unconstitutional as an unreasonable and arbitrary classification denying to teachers equal protection under U.S.Const. Amend. XIV and Minn.Const. art. 1, § 2, and art. 4, §§ 33 and 34. The legislature has historically treated teachers as a distinct classification, and this unique historical recognition, found in numerous other statutes which treat public school teachers as a class apart from other public employees, is sufficient to support its validity. Excepting teachers from provisions of the Public Employees Labor Relations Act expresses a determination by the legislature that a distinction exists between the two classes which justifies applying rules to one class which do not apply to another. In the matter of classification courts have viewed the action of the legislature with great liberality. Courts are not to weigh the merits of a classification in the judicial balance and to reject it merely because they might favor a different standard.
3. L.1965, c. 839, is a revision of some sections of the former Public Employees Labor Relations Act; sets up a general or exclusive system covering the entire subject matter of that part of the former law; is intended as a substitute for it; and repeals the sections of the former law amended by it.
4. The provisions of c. 839 which revised former provisions of the Public Employees Labor Relations Act did not add to nor detract from prior rights of school teachers as they relate to the right to strike or the right to join labor or other organizations. In the absence of a statute, there is no authority which gives a public employee the right to strike nor is there a prohibition against the right of teachers to join unions or associations organized to promote their mutual interest.
5. There is no authority, either express or implied, which gives the school board the right to hold an election for the purpose of designating an exclusive representative of teachers to negotiate with the school board with relation to wages, hours, and working conditions. Public employees do not have collective bargaining rights in the same sense that private or industrial employees enjoy.
Reversed.
Howard, Peterson, LeFevere, Lefler & Hamilton, Minneapolis, Sanborn, Jackson & Rice and William E. Holcomb, St. Paul, for appellant.
Donald C. Savelkoul, Fridley, Roger A. Peterson, Minneapolis, Peterson & Popovich and James E. Knutson, St. Paul, amicus curiae.
Robert W. Mattson, Atty. Gen., John Casey, Deputy Atty. Gen., for Obermeyer.
Samuel I. Sigal, Minneapolis, for Minneapolis Federation of Teachers.
These are appeals from judgments entered in declaratory judgment actions. Error is assigned in the trial court's holding that L.1965, c. 839, § 7 (Minn.St. 179.572), which excepts teachers from the application of the rest of c. 839, is unconstitutional and severable. Chapter 839 amended and added new provisions to the so-called Public Employees Labor Relations Act (Minn.St. 179.50 to 179.58).
The parties involved in this appeal are rival groups of public school teachers. Respondent Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59, is a trade-union-oriented organization affiliated with the AFL--CIO and hereinafter referred to as 'Local 59.' Appellant, City of Minneapolis Education Association, a nonunion organization, is affiliated with the Minnesota Education Association and the National Education Association. These two organizations have deep and irreconcilable differences which give rise to a conflict between them as to the manner in which teachers should communicate and treat with school boards on subjects relating to wages and conditions of employment. 1 We gather from the extended arguments submitted, the original files which constitute the record, briefs of the parties, and briefs amicus curiae that both groups seek the same objective but differ as to means. A review of the attempts of public school teachers to attain some satisfactory basis for meaningful communication with school boards by which their demands might be made known, considered, and resolved in a manner consistent with individual dignity and the ethics of their calling is a study of frustration.
Some background references should be noted. The threat of a strike as a means of dealing with employer-employee relationships in the public educational system came to the surface in January 1951, when the Board of Education of the city of Minneapolis sought an injunction restraining a threatened strike by a union composed of school maintenance employees. Board of Education of City of Minneapolis v. Public School Employees' Union, 233 Minn. 144, 45 N.W.2d 797, 29 A.L.R.2d 424. The disposition of that dispute turned upon the interpretation of a procedural statute and contributed nothing to the law with which we are here concerned aside from raising a spectre of the dangers of strikes by public employees, a subject which the legislature promptly acted upon at its next session. By L.1951, c. 146, the legislature adopted an act 'to prohibit strikes by certain public employees; to provide certain disciplinary action with respect thereto; to provide for the adjustment of grievances and reporting the facts relative thereto; and to provide conditions of reemployment.' This act was amended by L.1957, c. 789, which provided that public employees 'shall have the right to form and join labor organizations' and prohibited intimidation or coercion in such activity. Apparently, the act was also intended to aid public employees in their dealings with heads of government agencies. The act comprehended that the services of the labor conciliator should be utilized to investigate controversies and to ascertain representatives of employee groups by means of a secret ballot. By our decision in Richfield Federation of Teachers v. Richfield Education Assn. 263 Minn. 21, 27, 115 N.W.2d 682, 686, this provision of the act was found to be lacking in vitality. We there held that 'the Conciliator has no implied authority to specify units of representation for purposes of implementing the provisions of the act governing meetings between public employers and public employees under § 179.52.'
The next development occurred when President Kennedy promulgated an executive order on January 17, 1962, on 'Employee-Management Cooperation in the Federal Service.' Exec. Order No. 10988, 27 F.R. 551. This order provided definite means of communication between associations of Federal government employees and agency heads, which would make it possible to focus public attention upon the merits of employee claims. Apparently, the Minnesota Legislature intended that the 1965 Public Employees Labor Relations Act should be patterned after the proposals contained in President Kennedy's executive order. In amending prior laws on the subject, the legislature in L.1965, c. 839, recognized in its statement of policy that 'adequate means should be provided for preventing controversies between governmental agencies and public employees, and for resolving them when the occur.' Because the nature of governmental service required 'special limitations upon public employment,' it was incumbent upon the state to provide 'orderly procedures for the participation by public employees and their representatives in the formulation of personnel policies and plans to insure the fair and considerate treatment of public employees, to eliminate employment inequities, and to provide effective means of resolving questions and controversies with respect to terms and conditions of employment.' The legislature expressed the policy that governmental agencies should 'enter into discussions with affirmative willingness to resolve grievances and differences' and that there was a 'mutual obligation to endeavor in good faith to resolve grievances and differences * * * within the framework of laws and charter provisions.' It is unnecessary to go into the various provisions of c. 839 except to say that in substance it provides for a collective bargaining arrangement for meaningful negotiations subject to the limitation that it does not insure binding arbitration--a limitation inherent in the nature of governmental employment. The act reaffirms denial of the right to strike; affirms the right of public employees to form and join labor or employee organizations; and provides for the election of a representative who may bargain and treat with agency heads as the representative of all employees if the organization represents a majority of the employees.
The part of c. 839 which gives rise to this controversy is § 7 (Minn.St. 179.572), which states that the act shall not apply to public school teachers as defined in Minn.St. 125.03, subd. 1. The reason for this exception was that the legislature intended to make special provision for the manner in which school teachers should treat with school boards with relation to questions growing out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of San Diego v. American Federation of State etc. Employees
...Iowa, 175 N.W.2d 110, 112; Mugford v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745; Minneapolis Fed. of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358, 366; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539, 543, 546; City of Manchester v. Manchest......
-
Local 2238 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO v. Stratton
...Mass. 563, 254 N.E.2d 404 (1970); Ottawa County v. Jaklinski, 423 Mich. 1, 377 N.W.2d 668 (1985); Minneapolis Fed'n of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358 (1966); City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539 (1947) (en banc); Zderick v. Silver Bow C......
-
Commercial Nat. Bank of Chicago v. City of Chicago
...Gas & Electric Co. v. City of Springfield (1920), 292 Ill. 236, 245, 126 N.E. 739; Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer (1966), 275 Minn. 347, 353, 147 N.W.2d 358, 363; City National Bank v. Falkner (Tex.Civ.App.1968), 428 S.W.2d 429, 432, writ of error refused (Tex.196......
-
Federal Distillers, Inc. v. State
...to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the act violates some particular constitutional provision. Minneapolis Federation of Teachers v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358 (1966). 3. Since all enforcement of the act has been restrained both during trial and pending this appeal, we deal......