Court Opinion

ID: 9848033
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:11:39.417289+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:56.060391
License: Public Domain

DOOLIN, Justice,
concurring specially:
I concur with the majority; the trial court was eminently correct in issuing a temporary injunction relieving the Board of a duty to negotiate with OCFT while its members were on strike. I likewise concur with the majority in its conclusion that the “equitable” solution adopted by the trial court was unauthorized and improper.
I feel it necessary to comment specially as to the action of the trial court when it enjoined the District from negotiating with OCFT and from recognizing OCFT as a bargaining agent.
What the Board effected by its declaratory action was two-fold: (1) a declaration that during the strike by OCFT, it was under no duty to negotiate; (2)'an injunction against itself that prohibited further negotiation when the strike was over (with the properly certified OCFT). The Board with the trial court’s approval, clearly defeated the legislative intent of bargaining, possible arbitration and the whole purpose of the statute — labor management peace.
The injunction against itself was not proper and was a raw example of a misapplication of judicial force — an injunction against striking may have been in order but *727not one pernicious in nature that destroyed the contract right to bargain collectively and the purpose of the statute.