Court Opinion

ID: 9609660
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:29:35.405244+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:39.244093
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, C. J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in all parts of the majority opinion by Justice Tanzer except that I limit my concurrence in part II *300of the majority opinion to the second ground stated in the opinion; that is, that if the state statutory procedure for compulsory arbitration is regarded as requiring a decisional procedure in which the city must participate, it is “justified by a need to safeguard the interests of affected persons in those processes.”
The dissent argues there was no showing of a “need.” I am of the opinion that the existence of the “need” required to permit the state to impose a decisional procedure in which the city must participate need not be shown by the introduction of evidence. In this case it is apparent to me that there is a “need” to substitute compulsory arbitration, or something akin, for the forbidden right to strike to secure reasonable wages and working conditions.
It may be there will be cases involving statutes in which the need for a state-imposed procedure is not apparent and, despite a legislative policy statement of need, we may conclude in such cases that a “need” is not shown.
Peterson, J., joins in this specially concurring opinion.