rule in many jurisdictions. ( International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 321 v. Water Works Board, 276 Ala. 462 [ 163 So.2d 619, 620]; Fellows v. La Tronica, 151 Colo. 300 [ 377 P.2d 547, 550]; Norwalk Teachers' Assn. v. Board of Education, 138 Conn. 269 [ 83 A.2d 482, 31 A.L.R.2d 1133]; Miami Water Works Local No. 654 v. City of Miami, 157 Fla. 445 [ 26 So.2d 194, 165 A.L.R. 967]; Anderson Federation of Teachers v. School City of Anderson, ___ Ind. ___ [ 251 N.E.2d 15, 17]; Wichita Public Schools Emp. Union, Local No. 513 v. Smith, 194 Kan. 2 [ 397 P.2d 357, 359-360]; Board of Education v. Redding, 32 Ill.2d 567 [ 207 N.E.2d 427, 430]; State Board of Regents v. United Packing House etc. Workers (Iowa) 175 N.W.2d 110, 112; Mugford v. Mayor City Council of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266 [ 44 A.2d 745, 162 A.L.R. 1101]; Minneapolis Federation of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347 [ 147 N.W.2d 358, 366]; City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239 [ 206 S.W.2d 539, 543, 546]; City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507 [ 131 A.2d 59]; Delaware River Bay Authority v. International Organization etc. Pilots, 45 N.J. 138 [ 211 A.2d 789]; Railway Mail Assn. v. Corsi, 293 N.Y. 315 [ 56 N.E.2d 721] (affirmed 326 U.S. 88 [89 L.Ed. 2072, 65 S.Ct. 1483]); City of New York v. De Lury, 23 N.Y.2d 175, 182 [295 N.Y.S.2d 901, 906, 243 N.E.2d 128]; City of Minot v. General Drivers Helpers Union No. 74 (N.D.) 142 N.W.2d 612, 618; City of Cleveland v. Division 268 of Amalgamated Assn., 57 Ohio L.Abs. 173 [41 Ohio Ops. 236, 90 N.E.2d 711, 714]; International Brotherhood etc. Workers v. Grand River Dam Authority (Okla.) 292 P.2d 1018; City of Pawtucket v. Pawtucket Teachers' Alliance, 87 R.I. 364 [ 141 A.2d 624]; City of Alcoa v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 203 Tenn. 12 [ 308 S.W.2d 476]; South Atlantic etc. Longshoremen's Assn. v. Harris County etc. Navigation Dist. (Tex.Civ.App.) 358 S.W.2d 658; Port of Seattle v. International Longshoremen's Warehousemen's Union, 52 Wn.2d 317 [ 324 P.2d 1099]
No case has been found which has denied public employees the right to strike where, as here, the employees were specifically authorized by statute to bargain collectively and engage in other concerted activities. The following cases are distinguishable because the public employees did not have the benefit of such legislation: Newmarker v. Regents of University of Calif., 160 Cal.App.2d 640, 646 et seq. [ 325 P.2d 558]; City of LosAngeles v. Los Angeles etc. Council, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 46 et seq. [ 210 P.2d 305]; Norwalk Teachers' Assn. v. Board ofEducation, 138 Conn. 269 [ 83 A.2d 482, 484 et seq., 31 A.L.R.2d 1133]; City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507 [ 131 A.2d 59, 61 et seq.]; International Brotherhood ofElectrical Workers v. Grand River Dam Authority, ___ Okla. ___ [ 292 P.2d 1018, 1020 et seq.]; City of Pawtucket v. PawtucketTeachers' Alliance, ___ R.I. ___ [ 141 A.2d 624, 627 et seq.]; Weakley County Municipal Electric System v. Vick (Tenn. App.), 309 S.W.2d 792, 801 et seq.; Port of Seattle v. International Longshoremen's W.U., 52 Wn.2d 317 [ 324 P.2d 1099, 1101 et seq.]. Some of these cases are also distinguishable upon other grounds.
Second, there are strong case law and public policy reasons for reading section 13 to allow employers immediate access to an equity court when faced with public employee strikes, sickouts or other job actions. In City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59 (1957), this court stated the broad principle that strikes by public employees, including teachers, are illegal and subject to injunction. This holding was based on the notion that public employees are engaged in governmental functions and these functions may not be impeded.
Timberlane Regional School District v. Timberlane Regional Education Association, 114 N.H. 245, 317 A.2d 555 (1974), did not declare a strike by public employees legal. Rather it reaffirmed the ruling in Manchester v. Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59 (1957), and noted that in most jurisdictions a strike by public employees is prohibited either by statute or by judicial decision. Annot., 37 A.L.R.3d 1147, §§ 2, 3 (1971, Supp. 1973); 3A C. Antieau, Independent Local Government Entities § 30C.15, at 30C-44 (1970); 16 E. McQuillin, Municipal Corporations § 46.13, at 704 (3d ed. rev. 1972).
The corresponding right of a municipality to enter into a collective bargaining contract with a labor union has been recognized by statute since the enactment of Laws 1955, ch. 255. Manchester v. Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 511. That statute, which is a constitutional exercise of legislative power (N.H. Const., Pt. II, Art. 5th; Opinion of the Justices, 101 N.H. 544; Exeter v. Kenick, 104 N.H. 168, 170) reads as follows: "Towns may . . . recognize unions of employees and make and enter into collective bargaining contracts with such unions."
Strikes by public employees are prohibited in our State and generally elsewhere. See N.J. Turnpike Auth. v. Amer., etc.,Employees, 83 N.J. Super. 389, 395 ( Ch. Div. 1964); Donevero v. Jersey City Incinerator Auth'y, 75 N.J. Super. 217, 222 ( Law Div. 1962), rev'd on other grounds McAleer v.Jersey City Incinerator Auth'y, 79 N.J. Super. 142, 146 ( App.Div. 1963); see also Norwalk Teachers' Ass'n v. Board ofEducation, 138 Conn. 269, 83 A.2d 482 ( Sup. Ct. Err. 1951); City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Bldg. C. Tr.Council, 94 Cal.App.2d 36, 210 P.2d 305 ( D.C. App. 1949), reaffirmed 109 Cal.App.2d 81, 240 P.2d 16 ( D.C. App. 1952); City of Manchester v. Manchester TeachersGuild, 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59 ( Sup. Ct. 1957); Cityof Alcoa v. International Broth. of Elec. Wkrs., 203 Tenn. 12, 308 S.W.2d 476 ( Sup. Ct. 1957); City of Pawtucket v.Pawtucket Teachers' Alliance, 87 R.I. 364, 141 A.2d 624 ( Sup. Ct. 1958); Port of Seattle v. International Longshore. W.U., 52 Wn.2d 317, 324 P.2d 1099 ( Sup. Ct. 1958); Cornell, "Collective Bargaining by Public Employee Groups," 107 U. Pa. L. Rev. 43, 54 (1958); Note, "Labor Relations in the Public Service," 75 Harv. L. Rev. 391, 407 (1961); Note, "Union Activity in Public Employment," 55 Colum. L. Rev. 343, 358 (1955); Annot., "Union organization and activities of public employees," 31 A.L.R.2d 1142 (1953). In Donevero supra, 75 N.J. Super. 217, the Law Division held that the Jersey City Incinerator Authority was a public body exercising governmental functions and that its employees were public employees who had no right to strike; in the course of its opinion it stressed the vitality of the prevailing view that, in order to protect the public health, safety and
While the doctrine of sovereign immunity plays only a peripheral part in this decision, it is material to the extent that it is recognized that the plaintiff can recover interest only if the Legislature has provided for it by statute, either expressly or by reasonable implication. Manchester v. Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 511; Moore v. Dailey, 97 N.H. 278. Consequently, the issue before us is primarily one of statutory construction.
We agree with the reasoning of the court in that case and it is therefore our opinion that the legislature, in enacting our state anti-injunction law, did not intend to withdraw from the state and its political subdivisions existing rights to injunctive relief against its own employees. See Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 511. For these reasons the superior court did not lack jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction in the instant case.
[2] In this state as elsewhere, a strike against a public entity is unlawful. ( City of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Bldg. Const. Tr. Council, 94 Cal.App.2d 36 [ 210 P.2d 305]; City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507 [ 131 A.2d 59]; Norwalk Teachers' Assn. v. Board of Education, 138 Conn. 269 [ 83 A.2d 482, 31 A.L.R.2d 1133]; Anno.: 31 A.L.R.2d 1142 and cases cited therein.) [3] As pointed out in the Los Angeles case, supra, at page 48: "All the cited cases either expressly or implicitly acknowledge that to the extent that the terms and conditions of public employment are governed by statute or charter, they are not subject to modification by contract, and concerted labor activity instigated for the purpose of affecting such terms and conditions is not sanctioned by the law."
Elec. Workers v. Robison, 91 Idaho 445, 423 P.2d 999 (1967); State Bd. of Regents v. United Packing House Food and Allied Workers Local No. 1258, 175 N.W.2d 110 (Iowa 1970); Wichita Pub. Schools Employees Union, Local No. 513 v. Smith, 194 Kan. 2, 397 P.2d 357 (1964); Board of Trustees v. Public Employees Council No. 51, AFSCME, 571 S.W.2d 616 (Ky. 1978); School Comm. v. Easton Teachers Ass'n, 398 A.2d 1220 (Me. 1979) (per curiam); Mugford v. Mayor of Baltimore, 185 Md. 266, 44 A.2d 745 (1945); Massachusetts Bay Transp. Auth. v. Labor Relations Comm'n, 356 Mass. 563, 254 N.E.2d 404 (1970); Ottawa County v. Jaklinski, 423 Mich. 1, 377 N.W.2d 668 (1985); Minneapolis Fed'n of Teachers, Local 59 v. Obermeyer, 275 Minn. 347, 147 N.W.2d 358 (1966); City of Springfield v. Clouse, 356 Mo. 1239, 206 S.W.2d 539 (1947) (en banc); Zderick v. Silver Bow County, 154 Mont. 118, 460 P.2d 749 (1969); University Police Officers Union, Local 567 v. University of Neb., 203 Neb. 4, 277 N.W.2d 529 (1979); City of Manchester v. Manchester Teachers Guild, 100 N.H. 507, 131 A.2d 59 (1957); Delaware River and Bay Auth. v. International Org. of Masters, Mates Pilots, 45 N.J. 138, 211 A.2d 789 (1965); Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Unit of N.C. Ass'n of Educators v. Phillips, 381 F. Supp. 644 (M.D.N.C. 1974); AFSCME, Council No. 95 v. Olson, 338 N.W.2d 97 (N.D. 1983); State ex rel. Ohio Council 8, AFSCME v. Spellacy, 17 Ohio St.3d 112, 478 N.E.2d 229 (1985); Stevens v. Oregon Pub. Employees Union, 82 Or. App. 264, 728 P.2d 70 (1986), review denied, 303 Or. 172, 734 P.2d 1364 (1987); Philadelphia Teachers' Ass'n v. Labrum, 415 Pa. 212, 203 A.2d 34 (1964); City of Pawtucket v. Pawtucket Teachers' Alliance Local 930, 87 R.I. 364, 141 A.2d 624 (1958); Levasseur v. Wheeldon, 79 S.D. 442, 112 N.W.2d 894 (1962); Fulenwider v. Firefighters Ass'n Local Union 1784, 649 S.W.2d 268 (Tenn. 1982); C.I.O. v. City of Dallas, 198 S.W.2d 143 (Tex.Civ.App. 1946); Pratt v. City Council of Riverton, 639 P.2d 172 (Utah 1981); Commonwealth v. County Bd., 217 Va. 558, 232 S.E.2d 30 (1977); Intern