Teaneck Tp. v. Local No. 42, Firemen's Mut. Benev. Ass'n
| Decision Date | 10 March 1978 |
| Citation | 158 N.J.Super. 131,385 A.2d 900 |
| Parties | , 98 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2692 TOWNSHIP OF TEANECK, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LOCAL # 42, FIREMEN'S MUTUAL BENEVOLENT ASSOCIATION Affiliated With TeamstersLocal 286 and all Individual Members thereof, Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
David A. Wallace, Rahway, for plaintiff-appellant (Gerald L. Dorf, Rahway, attorney).
Howard A. Goldberger, Newark, for defendants-respondents (Goldberger, Siegel & Finn, Newark, attorneys).
Before Judges FRITZ, BOTTER and ARD.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
FRITZ, P. J. A. D.
The appeal in this matter embraces two questions involving the obligation and the prerogative of the Chancery Division in labor disputes. The first of these tests whether the Chancery Division may condition an injunction against an illegal strike by imposing requirements with respect to further negotiations. The second seeks an answer as to whether the Chancery Division may in any event impose certain conditions in a labor dispute where jurisdiction appears by virtue of an action for injunction against an illegal work stoppage. We answer the first of these inquiries in the negative and the second by qualified affirmation.
At the outset we note argument of the parties addressed to an additional question relating to a purported mootness of the appeal. This arises by virtue of an order of the Appellate Division interposed between the judgment of the Chancery Division from a portion of which the appeal has been taken and the argument of the appeal. We need not decide this question because we are satisfied that resolution of the basic issues is in the public interest irrespective of whether the situation before us is in fact moot. Busik v. Levine, 63 N.J. 351, 363-364, 307 A.2d 571 (1973), app. dism. 414 U.S. 1106, 94 S.Ct. 831, 38 L.Ed.2d 733 (1973).
While the defendant Local # 42 (Local), respondent here, complains (not without some justification) of the inclusion by plaintiff appellant Township of Teaneck (Township) in the statement of facts in its brief of many alleged facts which do not at all appear in the record below (see R. 2:5-4 and 5) 1, the facts necessary to the determination of the questions detailed above seem not to be the subject of any serious dispute. It would appear that very shortly after reference of a labor dispute between township and Local to a factfinder appointed by the Public Employment Relations Commission (PERC), 15 Firefighters of 18 scheduled to report for duty failed to report. The trial judge evidently accepted the representation of counsel for Local that this conduct "was a response on their part because of the frustrations they have experienced in negotiations with the Township concerning a contract." The township sought and obtained from the Chancery Division an order to show cause why this work stoppage, characterized by township in its brief as an "illegal 'sick out,' " should not be enjoined. A temporary restraining order matured into an interlocutory injunction on the return date. 2 But the trial judge, in an oral determination, added:
* * * I am going to direct as a condition of the entry of this order that the parties, through their designated representatives, meet with the fact finder on or before * * * July 12th, and that the parties continue to meet with the fact finder at least twice each week until the fact finder has completed his report, and I am going to direct that it be completed and filed on or before July 22nd.
I will further direct that the parties meet in negotiations face-to-face through their designated representatives, outside of any fact finder, at least twice each week for a minimum period of three hours or until they have reached an agreement. In the event that the Township fails or refuses to abide by the terms of this order, on application of the defendants the injunction will be vacated.
The township, offended by the conditions, sought leave to appeal and a stay from us. Leave was granted and the preliminary injunction was continued. But a wholesale stay was denied. Instead, we modified the conditions imposed and included in the modification the requirement that "the parties through their designated representatives shall also attend and participate in negotiations sessions with the fact finder appointed by the Public Employment Relations Commission as scheduled until the said fact finder's report is completed and filed." We did stay "any provision of the oral order of the Chancery Division * * * inconsistent with" the modifications of our order.
On its appeal the township urges that an injunction against the concerted withholding of services by public employees must be issued unconditionally in the public interest. Further, it insists that primary jurisdiction in labor disputes of this nature has been invested in PERC and that "the trial divisions of the Superior Court lack concurrent jurisdiction over any procedural or substantive issues involved in the public sector collective negotiations process governed by the New Jersey Employer-Employee Relations Act."
Nobody doubts the authority of the Chancery Division to enjoin the "concerted withholding of services by public employees." Indeed, Local, while denying any concession that its employees were engaged in concerted activity (but agreeing at the same time that 15 of 18 of those employees called in sick on the day in question), points out to us in its brief that it did not appeal from the order enjoining such activity. The law in our State has long prohibited public employees from striking. Union Beach Bd. of Ed. v. N. J. E. A., 53 N.J. 29, 36, 247 A.2d 867 (1968). It is also clear that the Chancery Division may enjoin this illegality and impose sanctions for disobedience to its orders. In re Buehrer, 50 N.J. 501, 236 A.2d 592 (1967).
The question before us in this respect is whether the Chancery Division, on proper application in circumstances demonstrating a strike in the public sector, must enjoin the activity. Put another way more appropriate to the context of the precise problem presented here, the question becomes: May the Chancery Division condition its grant of an injunction against illegal activity or refuse to enjoin the activity in the event conditions it imposes are not satisfied? As indicated above, we think not.
Disruption of government is so serious a problem called in Union Beach, supra, a "subject * * * so vital" (53 N.J at 46, 247 A.2d 867, 876) that its prohibition is more than a prerogative of the Chancery Division; it is an obligation. "(A)ny concerted action which obstructs or disables government runs strongly against sound public policy." Union Beach, supra, ibid. See also, In re Block, 50 N.J. 494, at 499, 236 A.2d 589, at 592 (1967), where it is pointed out, "When government undertakes itself to meet a need, it necessarily decides the public interest requires the service, and its employees cannot reverse or frustrate that decision by a concerted refusal to meet that need."
Accordingly, we believe that in the absence of the most compelling circumstances wholly excusing the grant of an injunction, 3 it is incumbent upon the trial court to prohibit unqualifiedly the illegal activity. For a trial court to do less would be for it to condone illegality and to trade one right for two wrongs. This we cannot approve.
On the other hand, we are equally convinced that while the injunction may not be conditioned, the Chancery Division ordinarily has the power in its equitable jurisdiction to fashion a complete remedy. As was prudently put by Judge Jayne, himself a highly regarded erstwhile vice-chancellor, in Grieco v. Greico, 38 N.J.Super. 593, 120 A.2d 260 (App.Div.1956):
* * * (E)quity never permits a rigid principle of law to smother the factual realities to which it is sought to be applied. In equity you cannot tune out the relevant static and undertones. Equity adapts its relief to the requirements of the particular case, * * *. (at 598, 120 A.2d at 263)
A prime purpose of equity is the settlement of the rights of the parties inter se according to the dictates of equity and justice. Jones v. Gabrielan, 52 N.J.Super. 563, 573, 146 A.2d 495 (App.Div.1958). This...
To continue reading
Request your trial