St. Louis Teachers Ass'n v. Board of Ed. of City of St. Louis

• Decision Date: 30 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 59574,59574
• Citation: 544 S.W.2d 573
• Parties: 94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2806, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,036 The ST. LOUIS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, a Body Corporate, Appellant.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

Page 573

544 S.W.2d 573

94 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2806, 80 Lab.Cas. P 54,036

The ST. LOUIS TEACHERS ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF the CITY OF ST. LOUIS, a Body

Corporate, Appellant.

No. 59574.

Supreme Court of Missouri, En Banc.

Dec. 30, 1976.

Kenneth C. Brostron, St. Louis, for appellant.

Charles A. Werner, St. Louis, for respondent.

George E. Kapkd, Independence, amicus curiae.

HENLEY, Judge.

This is an action by the St. Louis Teachers Association (the Associating) against the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis (the Board) seeking a judgment (1) declaring that a writing entitled 'Recapitulating of Understandings' (the Agreement) ¹ is a valid agreement binding upon these parties, and (2) for specific performance by the Board of obligations alleged to have been made therein. Judgment was for the plaintiff on both counts and defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. That court reversed the judgment and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment for defendant. We ordered the case transferred to this court on application of the Association.

The crucial question, the answer to which is decisive of this case, is whether, as the Board contends, the Agreement is void ab initio because procured by and produced as a result of a strike and other illegal acts of school teachers, members of the Association and the Union.

The Association is an organization of state certified teachers employed by the Board. The St. Louis Teachers Union, Local 420 (the Union) is also an organization of state certified teachers employed by the Board.

On January 21, 1973, after repeated unsuccessful attempts to meet with the Board and its budget committee, the leadership of the Association urged the teachers to go on strike and, upon a vote being taken, they did strike, thereby closing the St. Louis schools. The strike continued until February 18, 1973. The purpose of the strike was to secure an agreement with the Board providing for higher salaries, fringe benefits, and a grievance procedure for the teachers.

During the period between January 21, and February 19, 1973, representatives of the Board, the Association and the Union met to discuss and attempt to settle the differences between their respective principals.

On January 31, 1973, the Board sought and obtained from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis a decree enjoining the Association and the Union from continuation of the strike. On the same day, a representative of the Association stated publicly that its members would 'defy this injunction and continue the strike,' and the teachers did thereafter refuse to obey the injunction and continued to keep the schools The injunction decree and the judgments of contempt notwithstanding, the teachers refused to return to their classrooms until their demands were met with an agreement in writing. On Sunday, February 18, 1973, the Board and the Association, through their attorneys, reached a settlement of their differences. The settlement was reduced to writing as the 'Recapitulating of Understandings,' referred to above, and was executed the next day by these attorneys.

closed. Thereafter, contempt proceedings were filed against the Association, its president, and the Union and its president. On February 6, 1973, the trial court found the Association and its president guilty of criminal and civil contempt. The Association was fined $515,000; its president was fined $5,800 and sentenced to jail for 60 days.

The public policy of this state, declared by § 105.530, RSMo 1969, ² is that public employees do not have the right to strike against their governmental employer. City of Grandview v. Moore, 481 S.W.2d 555, 558(3), (Mo.App.1972) and cases there cited; City of Webster Groves v. Institutional and Public Employees Union, 524 S.W.2d 162, 165(5) (Mo.App.1975). See also: 51A C.J.S. Labor Relations § 306, pp. 104--6.

The court said in McDearmott v. Sedgwick, 140 Mo. 172, 39 S.W. 776, 778(2) (1897): 'The principle is well settled that 'no court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an * * * illegal act.' This is a principle founded upon public policy, 'not for the sake of the defendant, but for the law's sake, and that only. '' Schoene v. Hickam, 397 S.W.2d 596, 602(11) (Mo.1966); Greer v. Zurich Insurance Co., 441 S.W.2d 15, 26(8) (Mo.1969).

There can be no doubt that the Agreement upon which the Association bases its suit was produced by an illegal strike by the public school teachers. The evidence is overwhelming that the strike would continue and the schools would remain closed until an agreement satisfactory to the Association could be reached; that no authority would be permitted to stop the strike, the public welfare notwithstanding. Not only did the strike contravene the declared public policy of the state, but its continuance after negotiations between the parties had begun, and its continuance in defiance of the injunction and judgments of contempt demonstrated an utter disregard and disrespect for the processes of the law the Association now seeks to invoke to enforce its Agreement. For the reasons stated, the Agreement, was void (not merely voidable) and the trial court erred in entering judgment for the Association.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions that the trial court enter judgment consistent with this opinion.

MORGAN, HOLMAN, FINCH and DONNELLY, JJ., concur.

BARDGETT, J., dissents in separate dissenting opinion filed.

SEILER, C.J., dissents and concurs in separate dissenting opinion of BARDGETT, J.

APPENDIX

RECAPITULATION OF UNDERSTANDINGS

1.) Effective upon resumption of teaching and for the remainder of the 1972--73 school year, teachers' salaries will be increased on an annual basis of $400.00 across-the-board ($200.00 for the second semester of the current year.) Regular substitutes will receive a $2.00 per day increase.

2.) Effective for the 1973--74 school year, an additional $400.00 across-the-board salary increase will be instituted. Regular substitutes will continue to be paid on the basis of $28.00 per day.

3.) The Index Ratio of teacher salaries will be the subject of further discussions in any consideration of teachers' salaries after the 1973--74 school year.

4.) Commencing August 29, 1973, the Board of Education, at its expense, will provide teachers hospitalization insurance containing the features covered in a report of the Joint Committed on Insurance.

5.) There will be no strike, work stoppage or interference with normal teaching duties, and in the event that such shall occur, it is agreed that the same will constitute irreparable injury to the Board of Education and shall be grounds for injunctive relief. It is agreed that service of process in any proceeding to enforce the foregoing no-strike provision shall be effective by the Board of Education's mailing of notice of any such action by certified mail to the respective offices of the St. Louis Teachers Association, or its successor, and the St. Louis Teachers Union, Local 420, and this shall also constitute effective personal service upon the then officers of those two organizations.

6.) Teachers who are eligible for a Spring vacation during the 1972--73 school year will be paid therefor at the close of the 1972--73 school year.

7.) No disciplinary action or penalty will be invoked by the Board or its agents against any teacher in connection with his employment and no reprisals of any kind will be visited by any teacher or representative of said Union or Association, or its successor, upon any person by reason of participation or nonparticipation in their respective activities.

8.) The salary increase referred to in Paragraph 1 above is made in consideration of the commitment on the part of teachers to perform normal teaching duties on such days other than regular school days as may be designated by the Superintendant during the current school year, and in consideration of all the other conditions herein contained.

9.) In addition to the foregoing, the following understandings between the parties are confirmed:

(a) Proposed formalized procedure for resolving teaching questions or grievences;

(b) Procedure relating to wages, hours and other conditions of employment for teachers;

(c) Leaves of Absence;

(d) Visitation at schools by teacher organization representatives;

(e) Provision for extra compensation to elementary physical education teachers for after school hours activities;

(f) Commitments to reduce class size. Copies of all memoranda relating to such understandings are attached.

10.) Wherever reference is made in this Recapitulation or in any such memoranda to the St. Louis Teachers Association, it is understood to refer also to any successor thereof.

11.) These understandings shall remain in full force and effect until June 30, 1974.

I. FORMALIZED PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING TEACHER QUESTIONS OR GRIEVANCES

Should any question or grievance arise involving a teacher's working conditions, employment status or any other matter relating to his or her terms and conditions of employment, the teacher or his representative, as hereinafter provided, may have such question or grievance aired and resolved through the following steps:

1. The teacher or his representative shall have the right to meet with the District Assistant for the school, or the equivalent administrator at other units, at which the teacher is located to resolve the question or grievance.

2. In the event that the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction of the teacher and his representative at the first step, within three (3) working days after submitting the question or grievance, he or his representative shall have the right to meet with the District Superintendent in charge of the district in which the school and the teachers are located to resolve the question or grievance.

3. In the event that the matter is not resolved to the...