No. 13325 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1976 

LOCAL 2390 OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE 

COUNTY, MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, A.F.L. - C.I.O. 

and Mrs. Ruth Ware, 

Plaintiffs and Respondents, 

-VS - 

CITY OF BILLINGS, MONTANA, a quas i-municipa 1 

corporation, 

Defendant and Cross Complainant and 

Respondent 

ROBERT M. COOKINGHAM, and BRUCE L. ENNIS, DUANE 

SMITH, ROXANE LEE, WALT LESNIAK, NANCY LeCAPTAIN, 

as members of the BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE BILLINGS 

CITY LIBRARY, 

Defendants and Cross Defendants and 

Appellants. 

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, 

Honorable W. IJ. Lessley, Judge presiding. 

Counsel of Record : 

For Appellants : 

Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Gallagher & Toole, 

Billings, Montana 

Robert Edd Lee argued, Billings, Montana 

For Respondents: 

Rosemary Boschert argued, Billings, Montana 

Jones, Olsen and Christensen, Billings, Montana 

Frank C. Richter argued, Billings, Montana 

Submitted: September 10, 1976 

Decided OC12 2 ,.! 

, .I. . cr-,yz;c Filed: -- l.l 
Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison delivered the Opinion of 

the Court. 

This is an appeal from the district court of Yellowstone County. The Union and Mrs. Ware instituted the action 

against the City of Billings. The district court ordered 

that the trustees of the Billings Public Library be made parties. 

The City cross-claimed against the trustees, who then counterclaimed against the City. The case was submitted to the district 

court on the following stipulated facts: 

Respondent, Ruth Ware, was terminated from her job at 

the Billings City Library on September 10, 1974, by the library 

director with the approval of the appellants, the board of 

trustees of the Billings City Library. On September 26, 1974, 

the Billings City personnel director directed the appellants to 

reinstate Ruth Ware, however the appellants refused to comply 

with his directive. At this time a valid collective bargaining 

agreement existed between the respondent Union and the City of 

Billings, hereinafter referred to as the City. The termination 

of Ruth Ware conflicted with the terms of this agreement. The 

union had been established as the exclusive bargaining agent for 

the city employees in an election January 20, 1972, in which Ruth 

Ware participated. On April 8, 1974, the Board of Personnel 

Appeals made an appropriate unit determination of city employees, 

which included the library personnel. At the time of her termination, Ruth Ware was a dues paying member of the union. The 

appellants alleged that the agreement between the City and the 

union was not binding upon the appellants, because they had neither 

negotiated it nor ratified it. However, the district court held 

contrary to this position, and entered two judgments, one in 

favor of the union and Ruth Ware against the City and the appellants, the other in favor of the City on a cross-complaint, 

against the appellants. Appellants appeal both 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 collective 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 
the economic realities as well as the aims of the legislature 

sought by the Collective Bargaining For Public Employees Act 

and the Library Systems Act, sections 44-212, et seq., R.C.M. 

1947, and reconcile any differences if possible. 

We cannot limit our examination of the legislative intent of the Library Systems Act to the section cited by the 

appellants, but we must consider the entire Act. When so analyzed the library and its board of trustees is not a wholly 

independent and autonomous entity separate and apart from the 

local governing body. The local governing body and its electors 

decide whether to create a library (section 44-219, R.C.M. 1947); 

the mayor appoints the members of the board of trustees (section 

44-221, R.C.M. 1947); the local governing body establishes the 

levy, with certain limitations, for a special tax on the property 

owners to create a library fund (section 44-220, R.C.M. 1947); 

the governing body decides whether to issue bonds for the erection and building of library buildings and the purchase of land 

therefor (section 44-220, R.C.M. 1947); the board of trustees 

must submit an annual financial statement to the local governing 

body and also an annual budget indicating what support and maintenance will be required from public funds (section 44-222, R.C.M. 

1947); the treasurer of the city handles the library fund in 

accord with the orders and warrants of the board of trustees 

(section 44-220, R.C.M. 1947); and the local governing body may 

create a library depreciation reserve fund from moneys allocated 

to the library during the year but not expended by the end of 

that year, and invest such moneys(sections 44-230, 44-231, R.C.M. 

1947). Considering the entire scheme of the Library Systems Act, 

the board of trustees of the Billings City Library is granted 

independent powers to manage and operate the library, but they 

are still an adjunct of the local government, the City of Billings. 
The same answer to this unique issue was reached by New Jersey 

in Board of Trustees of the Free Pub. Lib. v. Union City, 112 

N.J.Super. 484, 271 A.2d 728 . The New Jersey Court based its 

decision upon various facets of interdependence in their legislative scheme, which is very similar to ours. 

The economic realities show that the City, not the 

board of library trustees, ultimately provides the salaries and 

wages of the library personnel. The City has a substantial 

legitimate interest in the operation of the library, which qualifies the City as the "public employer" of the Billings City 

Library personnel, including Ruth Ware. 

We hold there is no inconsistency between the Library 

Systems Act and the Collective Bargaining for Public Employees 

Act. Under the Library Systems Act, as a whole, the board 

of trustees is given independent powers to manage and operate 

the library. However, this does not qualify the Board as a 

"public employer" within the meaning of the Collective Bargaining For Public Employees Act, but merely as "supervisory employees" 

as defined in section 59-1602(3), R.C.M. 1947. 

Finding the City to be the "public employer" of Ruth 

Ware, we also find the collective bargaining agreement between 

the City and the union was binding upon the appellants. 

The judgments 
fle concur: 

--- . Peter G. ~elob D~S tric t 

sitting in ce of Mr. 

Frank I. Haswell. 

Mr. Justice Wesley Castles did not participate in this Opinion.