City of New York v. De Lury, 23 N.Y.2d 175 (1968)
A state statute prohibiting strikes by public employees does not violate due process or equal protection clauses of the U.S. or state constitutions because the prohibition is reasonably related to a valid state policy.
Summary
This case concerns the constitutionality of New York’s Taylor Law, which prohibits strikes by public employees. When New York City sanitation workers went on strike, the city sought and obtained an injunction against the strike. The union and its president, De Lury, were found in criminal contempt for violating the injunction. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the Taylor Law, finding that the prohibition against public employee strikes does not violate due process or equal protection, as it serves a valid state policy of ensuring uninterrupted government services. The court emphasized the differences between public and private employment and the unique need to maintain governmental functions without disruption.
Facts
On February 2, 1968, almost all sanitation workers in New York City failed to report for work, initiating a nine-day strike. De Lury, the union president, addressed striking workers, encouraging them to ensure the strike was “effective 100%.” The strike resulted in a massive accumulation of garbage (10,000 tons per day), creating significant health and fire hazards in the city. The City obtained a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction ordering the strike to end and De Lury to instruct his members to return to work. De Lury did not comply and admitted he took no actions to end the strike.
Procedural History
The City initiated an action to enjoin the strike and sought a preliminary injunction. The trial court granted the injunction and subsequently found De Lury and the Union guilty of criminal contempt for disobeying the order. De Lury was sentenced to 15 days in jail and fined $250; the Union was fined $80,000, and its right to dues check-off was forfeited for 18 months. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
1. Whether the Taylor Law, prohibiting strikes by public employees, violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or the state constitution?
2. Whether the Taylor Law violates the equal protection clause by treating public employees differently from private employees regarding the right to strike?
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to a jury trial in the criminal contempt proceeding?
Holding
1. No, because the prohibition against strikes by public employees is reasonably designed to effectuate a valid state policy.
2. No, because there are reasonable justifications for the disparate treatment between public and private employees regarding the right to strike.
3. No, because the New York Court of Appeals had already determined that a jury trial in such circumstances is not required.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the right to strike is not absolute and can be restricted when it conflicts with a valid state policy. It emphasized that a state can prohibit strikes if the prohibition is reasonably calculated to achieve a valid state policy in an area open to state regulation. The court found that preventing strikes by public employees serves a valid state policy of ensuring the orderly and uninterrupted operation of government. It argued that allowing public employee strikes would undermine the legislative process by enabling unions to coerce disproportionate gains at the expense of the public. The court cited prior cases and the Taylor Report, which found that the right of public employees to strike “is not compatible with the orderly functioning of our democratic form of representative government.” Regarding equal protection, the court highlighted the differences between public and private employment, such as the absence of market constraints in the public sector. It stated that “legislative differentiation between public and private employees, insofar as restrictions on their right to strike… are concerned, is reasonable.” Finally, the court rejected the defendants’ claim to a jury trial, citing its recent decision in Rankin v. Shanker. The court also found that De Lury’s actions constituted willful disobedience of the court’s order, especially considering that he actively encouraged the strike to be “effective 100%.” The court quoted Justice Frankfurter from United States v. Mine Workers, emphasizing the importance of obedience to the law and the role of the judiciary in ensuring it: “In our country law is not a body of technicalities in the keeping of specialists or in the service of any special interest… If one man can be allowed to determine for himself what is law, every man can. That means first chaos, then tyranny.”