8-1-126. Lockouts and strikes unlawful - when.

Statute text

(1) It is unlawful for any employee in the state personnel system or for any labor organization, through formal action or through its agents, to incite, encourage, aid, or participate in a strike, stoppage of work, slowdown, or interruption of operations by employees in the state personnel system.

(2) It is unlawful for any employer to declare or cause a lockout, or for any employee to go on strike, on account of any dispute prior to or during an investigation, hearing, or arbitration of such dispute by the director, or the board, under the provisions of this article. Nothing in this article shall prohibit the suspension or discontinuance of any industry or of the working of any persons therein for any cause not constituting a lockout or strike, or to prohibit the suspension or discontinuance of any industry or of the working of any person therein, which industry is not affected with a public interest. Nothing in this article shall be held to restrain any employer from declaring a lockout, or any employee, except an employee who is in the state personnel system, from going on strike in respect to any dispute after the same has been duly investigated, heard, or arbitrated, under the provisions of this article.

History

Source: L. 15: p. 578, 30. L. 21: p. 840, 11. C.L. 4354. L. 23: p. 721, 2. CSA: C. 97, 32. L. 41: p. 531, 1. CRS 53: 80-1-30. C.R.S. 1963: 80-1-30. L. 69: p. 584, 44. L. 72: p. 605, 107. L. 2008: Entire section amended, p. 292, 2, effective April 3.

Annotations

 

ANNOTATION

Annotations

Law reviews. For article, "Public Employee Strikes in Colorado: The Supreme Court Adopts a New Rule", see 22 Colo. Law. 1 (1993).

This section is constitutional only because it excludes from its operation all business "not affected with a public interest" as that phrase is usually interpreted and applied. People v. UMW, Dist. 15, 70 Colo. 269, 201 P. 54 (1921); People ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Aladdin Theater Corp., 96 Colo. 527, 44 P.2d 1022 (1935).

And one reason for holding a business to be affected with a public interest is that it is a practical monopoly. People v. UMW, Dist. 15, 70 Colo. 269, 201 P. 54 (1921).

Coal mining is affected with a public interest. People v. UMW, Dist. 15, 70 Colo. 269, 201 P. 54 (1921), distinguishing In re Morgan, 26 Colo. 415, 58 P. 1071 (1899).

This section provides for the situation where negotiations between school districts and their teachers over salaries and services may reach an impasse and a strike may appear to the teachers as the only remaining alternative, by forbidding a strike while the director maintains jurisdiction but permitting a strike after that jurisdiction terminates should the employees deem a strike to be in their best interests. Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992).

This section provides that nothing in the Industrial Relations Act shall be construed to restrain any employee from striking in any dispute over which the director's jurisdiction is concluded, and when the director terminated jurisdiction, the teachers were free to exercise their right to strike or not according to their view of their best interests. Martin v. Montezuma-Cortez Sch. Dist. RE-1, 841 P.2d 237 (Colo. 1992).

While the theater business is not included in the phrase "affected with a public interest" it is not so easy to say what is included. Many attempts to do so have been made by the courts, but the theater business cannot pass the test of any. Perhaps the best discussion of the subject is to be found in Wolff Packing Co. v. Court of Indus. Relations (262 U.S. 522, 43 S. Ct. 630, 67 L. Ed. 1103 (1923)). Such being the correct interpretation of the phrase in question, the entire controversy is disposed of by Tyson & Bro. v. Banton (273 U.S. 418, 47 S. Ct. 426, 71 L. Ed. 718 (1927)), holding the theater business not affected with a public interest. People ex rel. Indus. Comm'n v. Aladdin Theater Corp., 96 Colo. 527, 44 P.2d 1022 (1935).

A charge in the language of the statute is sufficient. People v. Fontuccio, 73 Colo. 288, 215 P. 145 (1923).

This section was held not pertinent to determining whether employees were qualified for unemployment compensation benefits when their unemployment was due to a labor dispute where the director of labor was enjoined by a federal court from taking any further action in the proceeding. Kania v. Shaffer, 31 Colo. App. 538, 506 P.2d 384 (1972).