Court Opinion

ID: 9728250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:03:09.044026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.145039
License: Public Domain

Rogosheske, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree that the decision of the trial court under review is a nullity. However, lest the language with reference to all of the plaintiffs that their “em*348ployment was terminated by operation of law because of their own acts” be misinterpreted, I would emphasize that any finding supporting that conclusion made either by the trial court or the Veterans Preference Panel should not be regarded as a judicial or administrative determination that each and every one of plaintiffs violated Minn. St. 179.51 by striking against the city within the meaning of the word “strike” as therein defined. Even though the facts indicate that two of the plaintiffs stopped work while on duty in clear violation of § 179.51, the actions of the others appear to amount to no more than a declared intent to strike, which could not be carried out because of the supervening notice of termination issued by the city manager. I therefore understand and believe that our disposition of this appeal should not be understood to preclude those plaintiffs from litigating the issue of whether or not they in fact engaged in a strike against the city by raising or attempting to raise that issue in any proper administrative or judicial proceeding.