Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME) Local 1922 v. State
South Dakota Supreme Court
Decided July 5, 1989No. 16354Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partSabers, Justice
The majority opinion focuses so intently on the language of the contract that it loses sight of the contract as a whole and arrives at an illogical interpretation.
If the majority interpretation of the contract were correct, Union would have expended great time and energy negotiating the contract, only in the end to give State permission to unilaterally change any contract provision, whether required or not. Such ah interpretation is nonsensical. Union would never intend to enter into such an agreement because, in effect, it would leave Union at the will of the State with no contract.
The…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- United States Trust Co. of NY v. New JerseySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
- Sonoma County Organization of Public Employees v. County of SonomaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- General Motors Corp. v. ErvesMichigan Supreme Court · 1976
- Wright v. Board of Educ. of City of East OrangeSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1985
- Bednarik v. United Steelworkers of AmericaDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 1985