SCH. DIST. NO. 351 ONEIDA CTY v. Oneida Ed. Ass'n
567 P.2d 830
Idaho
1977
Check Treatment

*1 lowing information was contained therein: P.2d 830 claimant, name and address of SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 351 ONEIDA COUNTY, Idaho, Municipal Corpo employers, names and addresses of his a ration, Plaintiff-Respondent, injury, description and time of his date a occurred, injury manner in which the a description of the nature and extent of his ASSOCIATION, ONEIDA EDUCATION disability, the date and manner notice of President, Willie, its Carol Dawn given, and ad- the accident names Defendants-Appellants. inju- dresses of the doctors who treated the Nos. 12213. expenses the amount of medical in- ry, Court of Supreme Idaho. curred, the disputed regarding liability. July 1977. completed form

We believe written to constitute both a

was sufficient compensation application and an

claim hearing. Supreme As the Court of

for a stated, imag “It is difficult to aptly

Kansas clearly as a writing a more intended

ine compensation applica than an

demand hearing on the com

tion for a Craig Corpora v. Electrolux

pensation.”

tion, 212 Kan. interrogatories submitted re

From the applica filed his

spondents after hearing, apparent it is for a

tion demanding compensa that he was

realized appellant’s injury. for his To hold

tion hearing cannot also be

application for compensation claim for

considered purpose the Work contrary to Act. The whole idea is Compensation

men’s away procedures from cumbersome get that, pleading so to the

and technicalities compen claims for possible, extent

greatest their merits. can be decided on

sation the order of the Industrial

Accordingly, reversed, and the cause is

Commission consist- proceedings for further

remanded opinion. with this

ent appellant.

Costs *2 Jr., Racine,

Robert Huntley, C. Hunt- Olson, Pocatello, ley Byron Johnson, & J. Webb, Johnson, Greener, Boise, Redford & defendants-appellants. Merrill, Merrill, Wesley F. Merrill & Pocatello, plaintiff-respondent. Bushnell, Jr., Cantrell, Robert A. Green & Boise, for amicus curiae.

SHEPARD, Justice. a consolidated This case is appeal of two lower court involving orders each parties, the same same factual circumstanc- essentially the es and same law. issues of appeal is from the prelim- One issuance of a inary injunction enjoining defendants-ap- pellants Education Oneida Association Carol Dawn president its Willie from strik- ing picketing any plain- schools tiff-respondent No. School District Idaho. The County, appeal second Oneida making order of the from the lower court preliminary permanent. presented are questions whether there public employees particu- right in is a against govern- larly teachers employer; such a strike for mental illegal; purpose is whether or not the of Idaho statutes prohibiting provisions injunctions in disputes issuance vent applicable involving to situations teacher- the striking and picketing of the employees; whether or not the is- system school district’s and schools. The preliminary injunction consti- suance Association answered and on October hearing tuted an abuse of discretion was held to consider is- statutory and common law stan- traditional sought suance by the *3 complied prior to the dards were with school district. injunction; of the and whether the

issuance hearing, At that no testimony was re- injunction was likewise an abuse permanent quired permitted either in support of or it overly discretion and whether to the opposition issuance of the broad. the court ruled as a matter of law that The Education Association is a Oneida injunction should issue. The Associa- “local association” with education proof then made an offer of tion meaning Negotia- of Idaho’s Professional testimony and evidence that it would offer Act, I.C. 33-1271-76 and was the §§ tions to the injunc- in resistance issuance of the representative of the teacher That offer was made portion tion. February No. 351. On District School record and is before us. The court issued 1975,representatives of the Association met preliminary injunction following the Board of the School District to with non-evidentiary hearing additional on Janu- but the Board negotiations, initiate stated 7, 1976, ary the court “permanently en- negotiate it would not until after Association, joined” its members and sitting legislature had recessed. Al- then president from striking against or picketing recessed, thereafter the though operation of the school Appeal district. negotiations place took and the no further taken both from the issuance of the tem- during May Association served formal porary and the issuance of the the school district of its desire to notice on injunction. permanent year for the school 1975- enter respondent At the outset the school pursuant provisions to the 76 and asserts that appeal district should be Negotiations Professional Act. inasmuch controversy dismissed as the negotiat- The Association and the district argues moot. become procedural agreement the terms of the ed in which the strike year occurred has ended by parties which was ratified both on Octo- the members Associa procedural agreement 1975. That ber tion executed and worked under a new agreement procedures set forth on only for the subsequent contract year. seeking agree- to reach later be utilized disagree. major We While in a sense the substantive issues such wages ment on as controversy by has been resolved the pas employment. parties conditions of The time, permanent injunction sage re failed to reach attempted but mains in effect and forbids members of the agreement on the substantive issues. The Association strike and the terms of that then notified the school district Association injunction are not restricted as to time. of the Association would be that members further that the legal questions We note refusing report on strike and for going are of first in this presented impression work on or about October 1975. state, are of substantial interest and Thereupon yearly the school district filed its almost disputes there are complaint alleging that the threatened ac- some of the 115 school districts in the state of the Association would be a breach of organizations appel tion of Idaho and similar to agreement procedural contracts lant’s. Also we note that appellant has alleged respondent the individual members of the Associa- the failure of the Negotia entered into with the dis- comply tion theretofore Idaho’s Professional (I.C. seq.) trict and that the threatened strike tions Act 33-1271 et The on irreparable damage. by respondent cause harm and effect of said refusal prayed injunctive pre- jurisdiction relief to of the trial court to issue district by That is of strikes teacher-public relief. also other- injunctive employees, public moment and interest. have prohibited wise it would those strikes substantial reject above we all of the reasons strikes prohibited firefighters. For We respondent school district invitation agree. Westerly School Comm. v. do Marshall, Assoc., mootness. Nelson supra. dismiss Teachers 497 P.2d 47 Robinson 94 Idaho well have may believed that the substantial Idaho Bodily, 541 P.2d performed difference duties also, Westerly School Committee firefighters vis a vis required teachers Assoc., 299 A.2d 441 R.I. legislative against express prohibition Electric Assoc. v. (1973); Nat'l Contractors firefighters and that the strikes 1,No. Dist. 66 Wash.2d against Seattle remedies available adequate and that strikes teachers could fol- teachers *4 I. adequate lowing hearings. that as Appellants argue first they employees right have a public III. guaranteed by the Constitution which is Appellants next assert that abridged. argue They be also and cannot in giving erred effect court not trial any attempt deny right them the that governing statutes the issuance of Idaho right to strike as contrasted with the strike relief in 44- injunctive disputes, I.C. § private in the employees sector would conforming and its 701-712 actions to equal protection. We disa deprivation restraints legislative set forth those stat

gree. Westerly Dist. of Town of v. School Court, together decisions of this utes Assoc., 96, Westerly Teachers 111 R.I. 299 Twin Falls Operating such as Constr. Co. v. (1973). also, 441 in A.2d cases collected 370, Engineers Local 95 Idaho Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d (1971). 1147 For a (1973). gener This Court held that 788 has view, contra see Anderson Fed. of Teachers dealing with labor controversies al statutes Anderson, v. 252 Ind. 15 251 N.E.2d thereunder the duties officials and (1969) (dissent by DeBruler). legislative to indicate a “insufficient are government should fall intent that II. statutory coverage. Legislative within the Appellants argue next that normally in directed to activities acts Act, Professional Negotiations Idaho I.C. effect a society sector and private seq., et. inferentially grants pub 33-1271 modification, limitation, or extension school teachers in lic the state of Idaho rights and duties.” individual’s right to strike since the to strike is Intn’l of Elec. 283 Brotherhood Local Union prohibited expressly in that Act. We Robison, 445, 423 P.2d v. 91 Idaho Workers previously noted, As disagree. we find no also, v. Committee (1967). See constitutionally guaranteed strike right to Assoc., supra; Board Westerly and exist no such in Ill.2d Redding, v. Education law. in The common law is ed at v. City of Minot General N.E.2d unless expressly in Idaho otherwise effect Drivers, (N.D.1966); N.W.2d An 73-116; by statute. In abrogated I.C. § Anderson, supra; v. Fed. of Teachers derson Indem. Co. Columbia Basin dustrial Steel Mine Workers of United States United Iron, Inc., 93 Idaho & P.2d 574 America, S.Ct. Easton, (1970); Kelly 35 Idaho L.Ed. P.2d 129 legislature assert Appellants has IV. firefighters, expressly argue of the case therefrom come to the essence 44-1811 that the We I.C. § by appellants, “assuming arguen- permit must intended to stated do, illegal that teacher strikes are testimony support fur- defense they ther, anti-injunction act does not might have the issuance of the injunc- strikes, apply still Hence, the tion. above assertions of the issue unless the pre- should not traditional are before by way us of its the granting requisites equitable of such proof made offer before the trial court relief exists.” preserved the record here. Those allegations assertions and proven Idaho

In 1971 the enacted the Negotiations express and we as to Act their authorizing Professional validi- agreements note ty except to negotiation between school later issuance of the their professional boards and order trial employees, requiring court the school 33-1271, providing engage mediation district to in the mediation and fact finding procedures and fact for resolution finding procedures. impasse situations. strenuously It is ar- trial as a ruled matter

gued by appellants, respondent failed, law that the neglected should issue and we school board re- assume, in of any must the absence engage requisite fused to in those eviden statutory record, Appellants tiary procedures. he concluded that a assert sought statutory impasse utilization of the teachers is illegal Assuming in Idaho. procedures respondent deciding school without that he was correct in this conclusion, board acted bad faith in their abrupt nevertheless, illegality mere statutory termination proceedings require the automatic an act does is *5 court and resort to action which injunction. resulted an of suance Anderson v. injunctive the orders of court. They the Trimble, (Okl.1974) P.2d 1352 cert. de argue that lack of good appar- faith is 308, nied, 95 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d ent from early the Board’s attitude in the 269; Schur, H. Nathan Inc. v. City of Santa that there proceedings, absolutely no Monica, (1956); Cal.2d 300 P.2d 831 grant financial resources available to the Davis, 65 N.M. P.2d 613 State in pay, following teachers a raise the Hurwitz, (1958); Eckdahl P.2d 161 mediator, of a the intervention sudden dis- Contra, Kleinjans v. (Wyo.1940). Lombar to covery enough money grant each di, (Hawaii 1970). See, Carroll raise; per year the teacher a insis- $400-500 & Commissioners v. President Princess tance of Board that the teachers were Ann, 393 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d governed by salary conditions set forth in contracts each individual teach- applied has been logic expressly That to as contrasted with the er and the Board involving teacher strikes and situations trial those ruling of the court that individu- automatic issuance of an has were conditional since the al contracts been refused condemned. School Dist. agreement procedural entered into be- later Assoc., City of Holland v. Holland Educ. appellants the Board and the indi- tween 380 Mich. 157 N.W.2d 206 individual contracts of the cated Assoc., v. Westerly Com. by deemed supplemented teachers were supra; Timberlane School Dist. v. Timber procedural agreement; terms Assoc., lane Educ. N.H. 317 A.2d meeting a ap- the Board refused on the almost eve of threatened pellants action; that following issuance of strike right In the sector the to strike is injunction, the Board the initial continued integral necessary part viewed as an compliance statutory with the im- to refuse process. the collective bargaining How- upon until motion passe proceedings ever, public in the sector the denial of the to were ordered so appellants comply right to strike has the effect of weighing court. by the district heavily in scales favor of the govern- indicated, during collective bargaining proc- trial ment As to heretofore court our appellants to In Idaho ess. made the permitted introduce no BISTLINE, Justice, concurring. to as the merits of judgment policy right employees with the providing majority’s I concur conclusion Rather, has developed statuto- to strike. issue, injunction may an the district before dis- processes to resolve labor ry alternative a hearing hold at which both the must court boards. teachers and school putes may union and the school board judicial be an appropriate It would their cases. present in those fault to function majority question addresses the The determinations. public employees such as teachers constitutionally protected right a to ignore alleged an refus We cannot may abridged under never be strike legisla by engage in those al to abide I majori- concur in the any circumstances. procedures for resolution tively authorized question conclusion must be ty’s we situations. While neither impasse in the negative though not for answered — ap trial should condone nor the If, cited majority. as a the reasons calling of illegal an prove the law, the teachers an had absolute matter (although the record does appellants could demonstrate engagement actual appear hearing procedures never today’s neither would never picketing procedures), in strike mandated play. into come ap or a trial court condone or should we utilize the prove the failure abide raised the teach- question actually prescribed procedures possi statutorily however, appeal, this is whether such on ers problem. long It has ble resolution employees, under conceivable cir- who equity a basic maxim that one been cumstances, ever have A strike. relief the court equitable must enter law, seeks answer negative below, hands. with clean clearly perceived Rasmussen Judge unnecessary likewise render hold trial court We hearing procedures by today’s mandated issuing the complained orders erred per se rule would also be opinion. Such *6 parte effectively what was an ex here in in policy adopt this Court to an unwise permit testimony express If had been proceeding. statutory require- of an absence the and had required the trial court we do so: and that ted ment the allegations as correct accepted very is a policy “I think it unwise to allow the faith of regarding the bad enjoin strike, to in peaceful trial court a a board, the in might he have issued of way absence to insure that the the dispute thereof corollary underlying also as will be and junction, but discussed amicably. prohibit in the To a strike in engage to the school board settled required where ending this amounts a context to procedure. impasse mandated statutorily the on employer bargain any pressure issue not for some did order Such with representatives faith good in pre following the issuance months to invite arbitrary is action employees injunction. liminary illegal strikes, violence, employer, and the and dispute parties between the the Since feelings may longlasting do bitter strike which resulted from the threatened the damage community.” Anderson that we dispute has ended non-resolution Anderson, v. 252 Teachers Federation for a necessity remand for further no see (1969), (Chief 251 N.E.2d Ind. We reverse the orders of the proceedings. DeBruler, dissenting). Justice court, the remand cause and order that trial clear, therefore, It seems permanent injunctions temporary answered in negative. to be is No costs allowed. be dissolved. upon majority relied by the authorities that equitable remedy clear it make J, McFADDEN, DONALDSON, C. should after all an been have heard and the district J., concur. parties recognized the public has considered whether therefore teachers today failed, have of settlement methods right in this state no to strike. Al faith, good were conducted in though majority cites no au health, safety whether the rule, that law thority for common some substantially would be harmed welfare if that courts have indicated at common law strike were allowed to continue. An employee public private — —had then issue if the injunction will district in right to strike concert with fellow work disruption that court determines of a ers and that collective action was often would, circumstances, under be so illegal conspiracy. However, an held overriding legiti as to warrant great passage with the 7 of Section the Nation the striking public employ interest of mate Act, 449, 452, Relations al Labor Stat. effective having in means to insure ees (1935), U.S.C. the conspiracy element § good-faith bargaining by employer. their employee’s was removed also, School Dist. Holland Education fully protected. to strike became In Asso., 314, 157 (1968); 380 Mich. N.W.2d 206 Union, A., A. W. F. ternational U. A. of L. Dist. v. Regional School Tim Timberlane Employment Local Wisconsin Rela Asso., Regional Education 114 N.H. berlane Board, tions S.Ct. (1974); Armstrong 317 A.2d Educa (1948). Nevertheless, L.Ed. 651 some courts Dist., Armstrong Asso. v. 5 Pa. tion have continued to hold that the common 291 A.2d 120 is Cmwlth. abrogated law was not respect rule with understanding today’s opinion this upon employees. School Committee v. I my base concurrence. that Assn., Westerly 111 R.I. BAKES, J., concurring judgment A.2d 441 United Federation Post part: Blount, D.C., dissenting in al Clerks F.Supp. judgment concur in the in Part IV I majority opinion which holds that at assuming pub- Even court committed error by

trial reversible did lic not have the entering injunctions not, under circum- that rule does virtue However, I disagree of this case. stances 73-116, ipso become facto controlling reasoning expressed and the law ago Long of law this state. rule majority opinion. II of the Part precur- Court stated with reference to the sor of I.C. 73-116: legality II and the Regarding Part adoption “By the section this state strikes, me seems to teachers’ adopt Eng- did not the common law of saying are majority when such common law inappli- land e., illegal, i. al- prohibited, *7 cable to of the entirely conditions state. The is not clear. But though point that territory Idaho, and state prohibits following statute is no Idaho which there of other states the lead similar by public Although having school teachers. statutory provisions, negotia- provides adopted for labor such 33-1271 § I.C. teachers, provisions that the common law as by public school statute were tions contrast, nothing strikes. In the conditions applicable about of the state.” says Ry. Hirzel, provides negotia- which for labor Pacific Co. v. Northern statute 438, (1916). by firefighters expressly prohibits 161 P. 854 tions Idaho by firefighters. 44-1811. In strikes I.C. § Moreover, the law common was not com- statutory prohibi- absence of a direct or unalterable posed of immutable rules tion, saying what is there for basis which survived reasons or conditions on are illegal? strikes they were founded. Common law which 73-116, evolving flexible and majority, pursuant to I.C. rules rules The changing social and applicable law for the conditions adapted to the common looks law realities rule, concluding practical that at common times. That was Pound, and had no common law. R. genius Law, VIII law rule against ch. which the common strikes Common Spirit The 119, Good, developed. v. 79 Idaho collective Today, In Good workers (1921). (1957), employers employ this Court stated: bargaining P.2d protected sector is ees in the that the rule of the not follow does —even “[I]t under most mandated forever remain fixed law must common circumstances — Similarly, law. our federal in all cases and under all unyielding provided for labor expressly ignores The contention circumstances. public school teachers and the of the basic virtues one denies seq. districts. I.C. 33-1271 et §§ school system. The common law is law and historical fact of life practical is also a sys- legal It is flexible immutable. decisions, recognized by judicial thoroughly expansion change capable tem strike, ator least a threat changed prob- to meet new and necessary conditions, brings employees’ interests to is what or to meet a new or lems upon employer. American Steel policy evolving from bear altered Council, 184, Tri-City expanding in an Foundries U.S. conditions changed 72, 78, 209, (1921). N. order.” 79 Idaho at 42 S.Ct. 66 L.Ed. 189 developing social 123-124, Corp., 221, B. v. Erie Resistor 311 P.2d at 759. L. R. 373 U.S. 233-234, 1139, 1148, 10 83 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 308 States, also Funk United (1963). organization A labor that can make (1933). 371, 54 S.Ct. threat simply impo credible to strike is changing rights good of women is a The negotiations. tent flexibility. of this common example concluding After regarding legal rule common law The illegal the ma- teachers was, in essence of married women rights me, equivocates, suggest- it seems to jority were one in the husband wife the trial court did have to ing that The being law —that one husband. injunction “illegal for the strike” grant suspend was existence of the woman legal school teachers if it found that Blackstone, marriage. during Commen ed faith, acting citing in bad school board 1941). taries, (B. changes Cavit ed. of equity “basic maxim that one who evolved in the common law which have relief equitable seeks must enter the court most apparent of women are rights —and Ante at 835. There is clean hands.” Reed, dramatic. Reed v. 404 U.S. recently authority proposition some 251, (1971); 30 L.Ed. 225 Turner 92 S.Ct. negotiate good boards must faith Sec., Etc., Dept. Employment 423 U.S. prohibit to obtain an in order (1975); Planned Parenthood 96 S.Ct. shown following a strike as quote Danforth, Missouri v. 428 U.S. of Central Regular from Timberlane Dist. v. 49 L.Ed.2d 788 96 S.Ct. Assn., Regular Timberlane Education Harrigfeld v. District Court of Jud. Seventh (1974): N.H. 317 A.2d 555 Idaho 511 P.2d 822 Cf. Dist. Paxton, “Accordingly, P.2d it is 98 Idaho our view that in decid Williams v. today ing confronted to withhold an the trial If we were regarding may properly among statute consider other gap with a our recognized married women this Court would factors whether methods of rights of failed, 73- through negotia feel bound settlement certainly *8 faith, been conducted good the old common law rule on tions have in impose to health, safety whether the present society. Why in our women will be majority antiqui substantially reached back into welfare harmed if the has is allowed to continue.” the common law anti- the strike ty to resurrect at 559. strike/conspiracy equally rule which is as A .2d outmoded? problem to me that the is com- It seems Thus, reasoning. this line of by relationship employers pounded Court, only of this not can today by mandate very is different from that in now workers fiat, by judicial firefighters. not but teachers I.C. 44-1811. Having § made negotiate good must now in boards provision prohibiting by strikes teachers availability the of a court or lose faith negotiations boards, in their with school it effectively This means that injunction.1 to me seems has itself wage in negotiations final be- arbiters the an opted for economicrather judicial than a go- and school are teachers districts tween wage disputes determination of to the courts who must decide ing be and school teachers boards. Therefore I negotiating good in parties the are whether concur cannot with the majority of this faith, or imposing withholding the court’s state, dictum, when they by Court albeit upon the outcome injunctive powers based prohibited strikes finding. I doubt the wisdom of of illegal and that courts should employ their position. the courts in such is placing injunctive powers to prohibit by strikes every social ill by which can be resolved teachers. In concluding otherwise it my that, It is view courts. considered to necessary is not assert that the legislation holding the absence other- in to is a teachers constitutionally pro- wise, society in our better served right. is tected It merely enough to ob- permitted instances a rule which most prohibited serve that and school to ne- boards teachers teachers, strikes framework, statutory within gotiate strike/conspiracy rule totally inappropri- faith, good letting in or bad eco- circumstances, present day ate to Good finally social forge and other factors nomic Good,supra. Therefore, of teach- conflict, conclusion of that rather than ers to strike is neither illegal. nor interjecting fray courts into the where reason, For this as procedural well as the threat an over the dangles expressed in majority reason Part IV of the teachers, if, in head join I would in opinion, the decision of the court, negotiat- school board has majority reversing the orders of the trial good ined faith. which granted injunctions. In legislature, when enacted the Our Pro- light foregoing, necessary it is not Act, Negotiations fessional I.C. 33-1271 et I, reach the constitutional in Part or provided seq., negotiations which be- anti-injunction statute issue addressed organizations their tween teachers’ em- III opinion. in Part of the Court’s districts, presumably the school ployers, present aware state well country, this generally in which

relations economic, judicial an rather than de-

favors disputes. wage adopting In

termination legislature might prohibit- act the legis- teachers it did in the

ed providing negotiations for labor

lation gotiation provides agreement specifies Negotiations Act The Professional the mat- 1. subject negotiation. Consequently, of each school dis- that “the board trustees ters arbitrary prohibit enter into a ne- trict . . shall . act does or bad faith professional employ- agreement impor- gotiation with refusal the school district include good negotiate negotiation agreement. By with in such tant matters in the ees specified unqualified exercising power faith on those matters to limit the agreement negotiation subject . . matter § 33- the school However, 33-1272(3). statutory obligation See also I.C. can avoid 1271. district negotiate negotiate require good faith act does not school district to at all with good negotiate respect respect faith the ne- to the excluded matters.