*1 TEACHERS, FEDERATION OF MINNEAPOLIS LOCAL 59, AFL-CIO, OBERMEYER AND v. PETER OTHERS. OF OF
BOARD EDUCATION SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 v. MINNEAPOLIS FEDERATION OF
TEACHERS, LOCAL AFL-CIO. 40,477, 40,478.
August 22, 1966 Nos. Howard, Peterson, LeFevere, Hamilton, Joseph & E. Hamil- Lefler ton, Carlson, Sanborn, Rice, & Rick J. Jackson E. Hol- and William comb, for appellant. Savelkoul,
Sigal, Sigal, Cohen Sween and Samuel I. for respond- ent federation.
Otis, Justice. presented here is whether the state labor conciliator for the may hearings establishing conduct unit their with the represent negotiations teachers *2 Board, a School an decision of the Minneapolis pending from district holding unconstitutional a statute which him prevents from as he intends to do. 179.52, 4 and of governing rights
Minn. St. subds. the public employees in their labor relations their employers, establishes the and machinery procedures under which the labor conciliator is author- determine, election, ized to specify units and after the representatives to conditions of proper negotiate Section employment. 179.572 provides that these sections of the Public Labor Employees Relations to Act shall not apply public school teachers.
Two are actions here One consolidated. has been brought by Minne- Teachers, apolis AFL-CIO, Federation of Local hereinafter called “Federation,” the claiming 179.572 is unconstitutional a seeking § and mandatory injunction the labor conciliator to requiring unit specify and determine representation negotiating with the Minneapolis School Board. The action brought other has been the by school board to secure a declaratory judgment fixing rights the and obligations the parties affected by City act. The of Minneapolis Education As- sociation, “Association,” hereinafter called the is a rival teachers or- ganization which has been as joined party defendant in both actions. The trial court held 179.572 § unconstitutional and but severable otherwise denied relief. affirmative The Association to appealed court on July
Because of the important constitutional issues which have been raised and the unusual interest which the has public securing a decision, prompt arguments oral on been appeal have advanced to Oc- Meanwhile, however, Federation, tober at request the labor has scheduled conciliator “for the hearing gather- ing pertinent evidence and testimony concerning the establishment of an appropriate representation unit.” On motion Association a temporary stay of the to be held before the conciliator is whether the should be ex- here granted.
has been has been rendered this court. a decision on the merits tended until to 605.10 pursuant a cost bond The Association has furnished in the court below” under stays it contends pro- “proceedings subd. 6. The Federation takes position visions of § judgment collateral before the conciliator are the proceedings it, a cost bond were held be sufficient even if unaffected and However, the appeal. effect taking pending prevent it to resolve that issue this time. Under the at necessary not find we do codified in 480.04 inherent this court as §§ discretionary power Procedure, 62.05,1 Rules of Civil we hold that and Rule and taking labor conciliator refrain from justice interests of that the require on the matter until the issues presented further action been heard and decided. has power concedes this court readily Federation
While the do so asserts that to would overrule vigorously prec- stay proceedings, in J. judicial established as enunciated policy deviate from edent Union, & F. v. International M. Foundry Co. F. *3 Quest do the case it an agree. In was We to restrain the conciliator from with sought who employer or the CIO AFL should represent to determine whether an There the employer for collective purposes. employees the and that it was unfair complained a contract with CIO already had it. abrogate to an election which held that might call We practice labor real, substantial, and threatened. The of irreparable injury calling was no “to do or refrain from employer doing did not command the an election election, said, was and speculative The outcome of we anything.” CIO, in no would injury case result. con- might favor which Procedure, provides as follows: “Power of 1 Rule Rules Civil provisions any in this rule do Appellate Court Not Limited. The not limit judge justice stay appellate pro court or of a to an thereof power of restore, an ceedings during pendency suspend, modify, or to during to injunction pendency an of an or make order grant quo to status of the preserve the or the effectiveness subsequently be entered.” Quest the employer it is. In not in issue. Here was jurisdiction
ciliator’s actively Association must Here passive party. an interested but was evidence marshaling notice to the conciliator’s vigorously respond and representa- in a contest for highly energetically partisan and campaigning nearly Here involved few relatively employees. tion. The case and an- 3,200 board involved immediately of the school are employees 37,000 directly somewhat less only other teachers Minnesota throughout children, 72,000 affected. has schools attended Minneapolis 99 public $44,000,000 If is annually. the cost of education is the conciliator whose election, of the permitted investigation and members his proceed Federation and Association and distracted may futilely be needlessly from their professional in an and time-consum- responsibilities expensive ing competition support. the outcome of the Whatever before be, the conciliator it might is almost certain that further review would be sought by certiorari.
If is valid, held to be ultimately efforts these parties situated, others similarly as well as the resources the conciliator’s office, will have been expended vain. hand,
On the other if the statute is found to be unconstitutional and sustained, trial the only serious consequence is defer- ment for about days right of the at a bargain collectively time when is probable most contracts for the coming year already been entered. No other significant been prejudice has called to our at- tention the tactical except advantage disadvantage in- may which ure to one or the side other as a result of the delay.
It is questionable our whether failure to further restrain the con- ciliator result in injury would is literally which “irreparable.” There is, however, very great likelihood such injury might be “real and sub- stantial.” Having advanced the case on the calendar in order render decision, we are prompt opinion of the the potential harm which might from revoking result far outweighs is likely if it is now extended until a decision on has the merits been handed *4 Accordingly, down. in conformity reach, with the conclusions we here the conciliator will refrain from further in the matter.
Stay extended. proceedings
50 Gallagher, (dissenting). Justice
Thomas 6, in cases not in 605.115, specified subd. provides St. Minn. here) (which be applicable 5 are conceded its subds. 2 through 605.10, 6, stay pro- shall in subd. of the bond giving specified § is a bond for in ceedings provided in court below. The § charges costs and pay any conditioned that appellant $250 cost bond him on the against appeal. awarded (which here) bond was filed does not settled such a
It well is is appeal from which taken. judgment vacate or annul judicata in and is res unless modified remains full force latter of the trial jurisdiction Pending court on the appeal. but not as is as to matters involved in suspended appeal, court or collateral of or to the supplemental appeal, to matters independent from was judgment appealed in which order proceedings (2d) 864; Barnes, State rendered. State v. Mane- ex West v. Spratt, rel. Spratt Cir.) (8 144 F. mann rule, it is my judg- which seems clear foregoing enough,
Under the restrain stay here should not serve to the cost bond filed ment that As the state labor conciliator. inaugurated by the proceedings presently July the labor conciliator’s notice dated noted in the majority opinion 22, 1966, “for the on 21 and hearing July purpose scheduled a concerning the establish- testimony evidence and gathering pertinent It is to be noted that representation ment of an unit.” is called hearing is in such notice which indicates that the nothing there date, or that determining a representation for the purpose of this court is decision procedure contemplated prior such on appeal. in the notice for the set forth hearing
I fail how to see taken, affect the any way would in in the hearing any way “proceedings relates fact how such subd. as specified court below” to authorize entirely the labor conciliator are Clearly, proceedings contemplated in- directly are not the lower independent of the con- Nor action volved therein. can I see where proposed
51 in in any way jeopardize position ciliator would appellant if irreparable injury that a substantial or is threatened them the conciliator with the proceeds contemplated hearing. F.
The same was reached this court J. conclusion Union, 436, Foundry v. International M. & F. W. 216 Minn. 13 Co. (2d) 32, denied for application temporary injunc- N. W. where it enjoining tion the labor conciliator an election 441, (216 the court pending appeal. There stated 35): [2d] * *
“* injunctive The allay is not to process litigant’s Dunnell, 4470; fears or apprehensions. 3 &Dig. Eastman v. Supp. § (D. C.) 754; United States 31 F. Redlands Foothill Supp. Groves v. (D. C.) 995; Jacobs 30 F. Supp. Burlington Mills v. Textile Corp. (D. C.) Workers Union 44 F. 699. The of an Supp. direction not final is but an step pending order. It intermediate in a and un- determined investigation. N. L. R. Board v. Falk 308 U. S. Corp. 453, 307, 60 S. Ct. L. 84 ed. 396. election does not calling of an command do plaintiff to doing anything. refrain from It does affect any contract, status way the of the nor any determine right obligation It thereunder. in motion merely machinery sets pre- scribed law for the of a passing upon ascertainment fact. In (D. 900, C.) 897, Press Associated v. Herrick 13 F. Supp. the court said: “ ‘Certification by the board of the names of selected representatives by the complainant’s employees will constitute no more than a mere * * * finding of fact without mandatory finding effect. A of fact in itself is no basis injunctive United States & Lake Angeles relief. v. Los Salt Co., R. 273 U. 47 S. S. Ct. L. 71 Ed. 651.’ * * “* case, conciliator, In the instant request at the of plain- tiff, far, conducted an investigation and when only so re- proceeded strained, as to give notice the election. It said cannot be with cer- tainty at this time what results of such an election would be. It is be might determined that Union possible C. I. O. continue as the exclusive agent of plaintiff’s major- since a employes,
52 event, it is still of that In purely of them are union. ity members be such as to now to determine that results would speculative cannot be Injunctive irremediable relief damage plaintiff. constitute Burlington result. is a given assumption possible for what mere (D. C.) Union 44 Supp. F. Corp. Mills v. Textile Workers be to establish a case supra. damage must shown Some irremediable Heller Dunnell, Dig. relief. 3 Bros. Co. Supp. § for equitable Lind, 862, and cases there D. cited.” C. F. App. Tzakis, 227 See, also, Hotel & Union v. Employees’ Restaurant *6 (2d) 859; Capitol Employees Local 597 State 33 N. W. (2d) v. Ramberg, 130 N. W. Thomas Quigley, 269 (2d) N. W. held administrative action uniformly decisions that an Our prior be injury appellant to an cannot does not threaten irreparable true, though this is even the decision enjoined pending appeal, grounds. is taken attacked on constitutional from which here, and on I feel decisions the facts On the basis such at restraining order is not warranted this time. FRYBERGER, WOLFF v. RHUDE INC. J. F. 39,836. September 1966 No.