Timberlane Regional School District v. Timberlane Regional Education Association
New Hampshire Supreme Court
114 N.H. 245, 317 A.2d 555 (1974)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
In the summer of 1973, the Timberlane Regional School District (school district) (plaintiff) engaged in collective-bargaining negotiations with the Timberlane Regional Education Association (association) (defendant), the bargaining agent for the majority of the school district’s teaching staff. By January of 1974, negotiations had reached an impasse on many issues, including salary. The association voted to send the issues to mediation but was unable to find a mediator agreeable to the school district. By the end of February, the school district cut off all attempts at further negotiation, and the association voted to strike until the school district agreed to mediation. Under New Hampshire law, public employees were prohibited from striking. The school district filed a petition in a New Hampshire trial court to enjoin the association from striking. The trial court assigned the case to a special master for a ruling. The master recommended denying the injunction because the parties had not exhausted the possibility of compromise in the bargaining process. The court denied the injunction, and the school district formally took exception. The case was appealed to the New Hampshire Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kenison, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 830,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.