City Council

Gorurcil Agenda i t i' -''-l 4//; iiiifil''"fuvlt THE CITY OT OKIAICIUA CITY 't OTFICE OF Tl{E MUNICIPAL COTINSELOR JUI- 2 t 1970 TO Mayor and CounciL FROM: Roy H. Semtner ltmlelpal CounseLor SITBJECT: Rtght to Strlkc by hrbLie Employeeo This offlce has prevLously prcpared a memorandtrm on thc question of whether or not publLc erryLoyeca have the right to strr.ke. In anslrer to your lnqulry as to Court decLslone and statutes on thig subJect Ln Oklahona, I submlt a eopy of that reuprandum. Also attached ls a copy of, tha pertLnent provisLone frm a paper dellvered at thG Mrnlclpal Attorncys Short Course of the Oklahoma Aesoctation of ltunlclpal Attor- neys by thc Clty Attorney of Chickaeha, Oklahona, which th thle qucstion. Re d, Roy Munic 1 Corlnselor RJIS: ILF:vy Attachments to do his or her part Eo make it function as efficiently and economically as possible. The drastic remedy of the organized strike to enforce the demands of unions of government employees is direct contravention of this principle. IE has been so regarded by the heads of the executive departments of the states and the nation. t'In the American system, sovereignty is inherent in the people. They can delegate it to a goverrunent rvhich they create and operate by 1aw. They can give to that government that po\ter and authority to perform certain duties and furnish certain services. The government so created and empohTered musE employ people to carry on its task. These people are agents of the government. They exercise some part of the sovereignty and trust delegaEed to it. They occupy a status entirely differ- ent from Ehose rvho carry on private enterprise. They serve the public welfare and not a private purpose. To say that they can strike is the equivalenE of saying that they can deny the authori-ty of governmenE and contravene the public welfar€.rr In City of Rockford v. Local- 1t'4].3 240 NE2d, 705 (r11. - 1968), the court, upholding the trial court granting of injunction against a strike, held at 706:. ttlt has been universally agreed in aLl- reported deci- sions that public employees have no 1egal right to engAge in a strike.rt This is the l-arv in Okl-ahoma, also. In International Bro" v. Grand River Dam , 292 P.zd L018, the court held at 1051: t'[^Ie conclude Ehat the empl-oyees of the Authority are employees of the State of Oklahonra and as such have no right to strilce against the State. The court in that case cited vrith approvai- the NoqvaJ-k case, supra. Comment Historical-ly, in the United States, the right to strike has been denied to public employees. A11 courts which have considered the subject havb held such strikes to be illegal and no statutory enaetment has yet granted such a right. Even under the provisions of President Kennedyts. Executive Ord.er 10988, the right to strike is specifically denied to federal government employees. Yet the strike probl-em continues to be one of the most troublesome.in the present picture. , -2- NII'IO General Counsel Charl es S. Rhyne, in his boolc, Itunicipal LaIv (page 164) states the reason for denial of the right to strike as. follorvs: ttThe basic principle that there is no right to strilce againsl- the governmenE j.s grounded upon a sound policy which demonstrates thaE laborts right of sErike must give rvay to the paramounc public interest and need for continuous functioning of all activities and services of government. tt The basic judicial philosophy was expressed by the court in Norr+alk. Cal-vin Coolidge, speaking as Governor of Massachusetts iu LgLg, in connection rrrith the Boston Police Strike, stated: ttthere is no right to strike against the public safety by anybody, any- wherer stry time.tr Franklin D. Roosevelt, in L937, expressed his viervs as follorvs: t'since their own services have to do with the function- ing of government a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of governnent until their demands are satisfied. such action, looking torvard the paralysis of government by those rvho have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. r' ' rn all probability these statements still represent the position of the public official on the strike issue; and even though the california supreme court in the case of Metro ol-itan Transit Authorit YV. Brotherhood of Railroad Tral-nmen , 54 Cal. 2d I 684 (1960), sustained the right of employees I to strike, (the I I Court finding an implied authority under the language of the act creating the authority) r Do other court has as yet indicated any relaxation of the general no strike rul_e. Ao H. Raskin, rvriting in a recent issue of ,The Atlantic Monthlyrr, has stated: t'The real basis for holding indivisibr.e the doctrine that tyo,, cantt strike against the governmentr lies in the nature of governrnent as the embodiment of all Ehe people. IE is not an employer organized for profit, I so the convenEionaL notion of strikes as tesEs of '! 't I I -3- l, j : sErength in which tl-re pressures of the market place operate to constrain both management and union lacks perEinency. The services government pr:ovidesr Do matter horv unglamoroi.rs, are essential, or governmenE shouldn I t be doing thena. "In that sense, a strike against goverfinenE becornes an interference with the political process, an attempt by one segment of the people to exert its control over a specific service as a \^reapon to coerce the whole com- muniEy into submission on j.ts terrns. And the more vital the service, the greater the chance that the conununity ruil1 have to capitulate.tl The power to control Ehe terms and conditions of .*ptoy*ent, who may work, retes of pay and hours of r^rork in regard to employees of The CiEy of 0klahoma City is in the hands of the Council of The City of OkLahoma City as a part of its sovereignty. The exercise of this Poi^rer is provided for in the City Charter and implemented by existing Legis1atig.. The empLoyees of the refuse collection division have no right, power or authority to strike against the legisLat.ive authority for any purpose. To alIorv this i11egal strike wouLd be to open the door to chaos and anarchy and deny the public the right to effective, funcEioning government. The -a self-inEerest of few'cannoE be allorved, to eripple the operation of City government. QresEion II Are mass resignations, mass use of sick leave, mass faiLure to report to rvork, threats to working employees, or blocking of refuse coL- Lection vehicles and personnel actions rvhich amounE to a strike? ConcJ-usion The actions referred to are carried out vrith the intent of denying the City the necessary manporver and equipment to.carry out its governmental functions and as such consti- tute an illegal strike. 4na1-ysis In the 4ockford case, supra, the defendant union claimed that there was noE a sErike but only a vrork dispute. The facts re- -4- I met by the City' the union vealed that rqhen demancls had not been personnel at each ordered a so'L reduction in fire department station..ThecourEheldthaEthiswasanunlawfulstrike.IE stated aE 707 z as a cessation of work by "A strike has been defined ! efforE to get- for employees more employees in an -Th; that the r'rork stop- : favorable terms : fact- i ' ' ' nots aLter the obvious Pur- Page was nou complete-does by with- pose of the fire*u'' to-i uqti'" their demands irolding their serviees.'t I 53 N.J. 29, 247'.Azd 867 In Board of Educa tion v. Nerq Jerse held that public empLoyees (1968), the supreme courE of New Jersey an action by the school- board may not strike. The case invol-ved and imposition of to resErain a mass resignation of teachers refused to resign' The sanctions imposed against teachers rvho the sErikers, and trial court held for t\. school board against preventirr.g the strike. An the Supreme Court affirmed, thereby the proposed acEions of important'question in the case was vrhether court held Ehat the resig- the teachers consLiEuted a sErike' The against the school- board nations and imposition of sancEions action forbidden by 1-arv' The represented the kind of a concerted court stated aE 873: ,,But.ofcoursetheso-calledimpositionofsanctions of sanctions o . o' tr'" *""' t"'ig"lti;;; ani-threat against-t.""r,ursrvhoofferoracceDtne\{emP1-oyrnent'illegaI p1-an to are all parr and parc;i-;; a singll That the convenEional terminol-ogy block goir"rn*ent. moment' The of a strike nor'rhere ;;;";;; -i" of no substarrceofasituatitnandnotitsshapemustthe public conErol. A docErine-a"'ig"ud io "ot"ttit' It does interest is equal tt l"V-temana 1no" not Yield Eo guise or ingenurcY' Further, the Court said at 872t makes i1-jega1 ,,The public demand for services r.rhich governmu'tt inveighs against any a strike against deny governmenE other concertea attio" Jtsigned l; exist- *u'no'ol;'-;;;;her' by terrninating the necessary or by obsEructing access ing employrnents in ;;;'*oa" be brought to the labor market' Government'may noE to a ha1t. -5- t'Hence, slthough the righE of an individual to resign or to refuse public employment is undeniable, yet two or more may not agree to follorv a cornmon course to the end that an agency of government shaIl be unable to function. t' Comment The word t'striketr is defined in Blackrs Larv Dictionary as: ttThe act of quitting work by a body of workmen for Ehe purpose of coereing their employer to accede to some demand they have made upon him, and which he has refused." The defendants in this case have never made an attempt to'conceal the nature of their actions against the city. They have even referred to it as a general strike and encouraged other employees and persons to join with them and halt the coll-ection of refuse in the City untiL their demands have been met. Even if they did not cal-l- their action a strike, the resuLt of it would define it as such. The effect of Lheir action is to deny the city the man- Power and equipment necessary to perform its government functions, I with the ultimate objective of coercing the City to accede to their self-interest demands in regard to salary increases and changed terms and conditions of emplo5rment. such acEion is a stril