LCL 2390 WARE v CITY OF BILLING

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13325 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1976 LOCAL 2390 OF AMERICAN FEDERATION O STATE F COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, A.F.L. C.I.O. and Mrs. Ruth Ware, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, - -VS - C I T Y O BILLINGS, MONTANA, a quas i-municipa 1 F corporation, Defendant and Cross Complainant and Respondent ROBERT M. COOKINGHAM, and BRUCE L. ENNIS, DUANE SMITH, ROXANE LEE, W L LESNIAK, NANCY LeCAPTAIN, AT a s members o f t h e BOARD O TRUSTEES OF THE BILLINGS F C I T Y LIBRARY, Defendants and Cross Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. IJ. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, G a l l a g h e r & Toole, B i l l i n g s , Montana R o b e r t Edd Lee a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents: Rosemary B o s c h e r t a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana J o n e s , Olsen and C h r i s t e n s e n , B i l l i n g s , Montana Frank C. R i c h t e r a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided Filed: OC12 2 ,.! , cr-,yz;c -- September 10, 1976 l . l .I. . Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Yellows t o n e County. The Union and M r s . Ware i n s t i t u t e d t h e a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d t h a t t h e t r u s t e e s o f t h e B i l l i n g s P u b l i c L i b r a r y be made p a r t i e s . The C i t y c r o s s - c l a i m e d a g a i n s t t h e t r u s t e e s , who t h e n c o u n t e r claimed a g a i n s t t h e City. The c a s e was s u b m i t t e d t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t on t h e f o l l o w i n g s t i p u l a t e d f a c t s : Respondent, Ruth Ware, was t e r m i n a t e d from h e r j o b a t t h e B i l l i n g s C i t y L i b r a r y on September 1 0 , 1974, by t h e l i b r a r y d i r e c t o r w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s , t h e board o f t r u s t e e s of t h e B i l l i n g s C i t y L i b r a r y . On September 26, 1974, t h e B i l l i n g s C i t y personnel d i r e c t o r d i r e c t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o r e i n s t a t e Ruth Ware, however t h e a p p e l l a n t s r e f u s e d t o comply with h i s d i r e c t i v e . A t t h i s time a v a l i d c o l l e c t i v e bargaining agreement e x i s t e d between t h e r e s p o n d e n t Union and t h e C i t y of Billings, hereinafter referred t o a s the City. The t e r m i n a t i o n o f Ruth Ware c o n f l i c t e d w i t h t h e t e r m s of t h i s agreement. The u n i o n had been e s t a b l i s h e d a s t h e e x c l u s i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g e n t f o r t h e c i t y employees i n a n e l e c t i o n J a n u a r y 2 0 , 1972, i n which Ruth Ware p a r t i c i p a t e d . On A p r i l 8 , 1974, t h e Board of P e r s o n n e l Appeals made a n a p p r o p r i a t e u n i t d e t e r m i n a t i o n of c i t y employees, which i n c l u d e d t h e l i b r a r y p e r s o n n e l . A t t h e t i m e of h e r t e r m i - n a t i o n , Ruth Ware was a d u e s p a y i n g member o f t h e u n i o n . The a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e agreement between t h e C i t y and t h e u n i o n was n o t b i n d i n g upon t h e a p p e l l a n t s , b e c a u s e t h e y had n e i t h e r n e g o t i a t e d it nor r a t i f i e d i t . However, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d c o n t r a r y t o t h i s p o s i t i o n , and e n t e r e d two judgments, one i n f a v o r of t h e union and Ruth Ware a g a i n s t t h e C i t y and t h e a p p e l l a n t s , t h e o t h e r i n f a v o r of t h e C i t y on a c r o s s - c o m p l a i n t , against the appellants. A p p e l l a n t s a p p e a l b o t h judgments. The only issue determinative of this appeal is whether Ruth Ware's "public employer", within the meaning of the Collective Bargaining For Public Employees Act, sections 59-1601 et seq., R.C.M. 1947, was the City or the appellants. In the latter situation, the agreement would not be binding on the appellants, since a separate and autonomous employer cannot be bound to a contract he has neither negotiated or ratified. Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division, 370 F.Supp. 62 (1974). On the other hand, should her "public employer" be the City, the appellants are bound by the agreement. The appellants contend that they are the "public employer" of Ruth Ware by way of section 44-223, R.C.M. 1947, which states: " * * * With recommendation of the chief librarian the board shall employ and discharge such other persons as may be necessary in the administration of the affairs of the library, fix and pay their salaries and compensation and prescribe their duties." This is the first time we have been asked to define "public employer" within the meaning of the Collective Bargaining For Public Employees Act. The Act grants the right of col- lective bargaining to public employers and public employees in much the same manner as the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 29 USCA S141 et seq., does to employers and employees in the private sector. For this reason, we adopt the doctrine established by the United States Supreme Court to define such terms, as set forth in National Labor Rel. Bd. v. Hearst Publications, 322 U.S. " * * * In this light, the broad language of the Act's definitions, which in terms reject conventional limitations on such conceptions as 'employee,' 'employer,' and 'labor dispute,' leaves no doubt that its applicability is to be determined broadly, in doubtful situations, by underlying economic facts rather than technically and exclusively by previously established legal classifications." To properly define "public employer" we must appreciate t h e economic r e a l i t i e s a s w e l l a s t h e a i m s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e s o u g h t by t h e C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g F o r P u b l i c Employees A c t and t h e L i b r a r y Systems A c t , s e c t i o n s 44-212, e t seq., R.C.M. 1947, and r e c o n c i l e any d i f f e r e n c e s i f p o s s i b l e . W e cannot l i m i t our examination of t h e l e g i s l a t i v e in- t e n t o f t h e L i b r a r y Systems A c t t o t h e s e c t i o n c i t e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t s , b u t w e must c o n s i d e r t h e e n t i r e A c t . When s o an- a l y z e d t h e l i b r a r y and i t s b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s i s n o t a w h o l l y i n d e p e n d e n t and autonomous e n t i t y s e p a r a t e and a p a r t from t h e l o c a l g o v e r n i n g body. The l o c a l g o v e r n i n g body and i t s e l e c t o r s d e c i d e w h e t h e r t o c r e a t e a l i b r a r y ( s e c t i o n 44-219, R.C.M. 1947); t h e mayor a p p o i n t s t h e members o f t h e b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s ( s e c t i o n 44-221, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) ; t h e l o c a l g o v e r n i n g body e s t a b l i s h e s t h e l e v y , w i t h c e r t a i n l i m i t a t i o n s , f o r a s p e c i a l t a x on t h e p r o p e r t y owners t o c r e a t e a l i b r a r y f u n d ( s e c t i o n 44-220, R.C.M. 1947); t h e g o v e r n i n g body d e c i d e s w h e t h e r t o i s s u e bonds f o r t h e erect i o n and b u i l d i n g o f l i b r a r y b u i l d i n g s and t h e p u r c h a s e o f l a n d t h e r e f o r ( s e c t i o n 44-220, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) ; t h e board of t r u s t e e s must s u b m i t a n a n n u a l f i n a n c i a l s t a t e m e n t t o t h e l o c a l g o v e r n i n g body and a l s o a n a n n u a l b u d g e t i n d i c a t i n g what s u p p o r t and maint e n a n c e w i l l b e r e q u i r e d from p u b l i c f u n d s ( s e c t i o n 44-222, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) ; t h e t r e a s u r e r o f t h e c i t y h a n d l e s t h e l i b r a r y fund i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e o r d e r s and w a r r a n t s o f t h e b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s ( s e c t i o n 44-220, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 ) ; and t h e l o c a l g o v e r n i n g body may c r e a t e a l i b r a r y d e p r e c i a t i o n r e s e r v e f u n d from moneys a l l o c a t e d t o t h e l i b r a r y d u r i n g t h e y e a r b u t n o t expended by t h e end o f t h a t y e a r , and i n v e s t s u c h m o n e y s ( s e c t i o n s 44-230, 1947). 44-231, R.C.M. C o n s i d e r i n g t h e e n t i r e scheme o f t h e L i b r a r y Systems A c t , t h e board of t r u s t e e s of t h e B i l l i n g s C i t y L i b r a r y i s g r a n t e d i n d e p e n d e n t powers t o manage and o p e r a t e t h e l i b r a r y , b u t t h e y a r e s t i l l a n a d j u n c t o f t h e l o c a l government, t h e C i t y o f B i l l i n g s . The s a m e answer t o t h i s u n i q u e i s s u e was r e a c h e d by N e w J e r s e y i n Board o f T r u s t e e s o f t h e F r e e Pub. L i b . v . Union C i t y , 112 N.J.Super. 484, 271 A.2d 728 . The N e w J e r s e y C o u r t b a s e d i t s d e c i s i o n upon v a r i o u s f a c e t s o f i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e i n t h e i r l e g i s l a t i v e scheme, which i s v e r y s i m i l a r t o o u r s . The economic r e a l i t i e s show t h a t t h e C i t y , n o t t h e b o a r d o f l i b r a r y t r u s t e e s , u l t i m a t e l y p r o v i d e s t h e s a l a r i e s and wages o f t h e l i b r a r y p e r s o n n e l . The C i t y h a s a s u b s t a n t i a l l e g i t i m a t e i n t e r e s t i n t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e l i b r a r y , which q u a l i f i e s t h e C i t y a s t h e " p u b l i c employer" o f t h e B i l l i n g s C i t y L i b r a r y p e r s o n n e l , i n c l u d i n g Ruth Ware. W e h o l d t h e r e i s no i n c o n s i s t e n c y between t h e L i b r a r y Systems A c t and t h e C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g f o r P u b l i c Employees Act. Under t h e L i b r a r y Systems A c t , as a w h o l e , t h e b o a r d o f t r u s t e e s i s g i v e n i n d e p e n d e n t powers t o manage and o p e r a t e the library. However, t h i s d o e s n o t q u a l i f y t h e Board a s a " p u b l i c employer" w i t h i n t h e meaning o f t h e C o l l e c t i v e B a r g a i n i n g F o r P u b l i c Employees A c t , b u t m e r e l y a s " s u p e r v i s o r y employees" as d e f i n e d i n s e c t i o n 5 9 - 1 6 0 2 ( 3 ) , R.C.M. 1947. F i n d i n g t h e C i t y t o b e t h e " p u b l i c employer" o f Ruth Ware, w e a l s o f i n d t h e c o l l e c t i v e b a r g a i n i n g a g r e e m e n t between t h e C i t y and t h e u n i o n was b i n d i n g upon t h e a p p e l l a n t s . The judgments fle concur: --- . Peter D b r G. ~ e l o ~t Si c t sitting in ce o f M r . Frank I. H a s w e l l . Mr. J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s O p i n i o n .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.