SAND, Judge.
The plaintiff, Edgeley Education Association, appealed from the trial court’s order dated June 3, 1975, dissolving a restraining order and refusing to grant a temporary injunction. Subsequently, a temporary restraining order and injunction was issued by this court pending the outcome of this appeal on June 17, 1975.
Plaintiff’s complaint, dated May 29, 1975, alleged that Edgeley Public School District # 3, defendant and appellee herein, while negotiations were in process with plaintiff under Chapter 15-38.1, North Dakota Century Code, tendered contracts to the teachers which had a chilling effect on the negotiations and constituted bad faith in its negotiations. The complaint concluded by asking for an injunction prohibiting the defendant from accepting or putting into effect any contracts tendered, and requested that defendant be enjoined from hiring any person to replace any teacher represented by the negotiating unit.
The plaintiff made application to the district court for a restraining order and temporary injunction, whereupon the court issued its order to show cause. The affidavit in support of the application is as follows:
“MEREDITH THURLOW, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the President of the Edgeley Education Association; that the Edgeley Education Association is the representative organization for the classroom teachers of the Edgeley Public School District No. 3, which has been designated as an appropriate negotiating unit; that the Edgeley Education Association and the Edgeley school district are presently engaged in negotiations pursuant to Chapter 15-38.1 of the North Dakota Century Code; that on or about the-day of May, 1975, the school board made demand upon the teachers represented by the Plaintiff association that they must return binding letters of intent by May 31, 1975; that such a requirement would have a chilling effect upon negotiations in that the school district would be under no compulsion to reach a settlement; that unless a temporary injunction is issued the binding letters of intent will have to be returned by the 31st day of May, 1975, and this Plaintiff will no longer be able to play an effective role in negotiations.”
A similar affidavit by Glen Engle was also filed stating substantially the same information.
The trial court, on the basis of the application and supporting affidavits, issued an order directing the defendant school board to show cause on the 3rd day of June, 1975, why a temporary injunction should not be granted. The court also temporarily restrained the defendant school board from performing any acts stated in the order to show cause until the date of hearing.
Defendant, by affidavit, made a return to the order to show cause resisting the application for an injunction, as follows:
“Comes now Sam Hird, President of the Edgeley Public School District No. 3, a public corporation, and makes this Affidavit and Return to Order to Show Cause on its’ behalf.
“Your affiant specifically resists paragraph ' # 1 of Plaintiff’s Order
“Your affiant resists paragraph # 2 of Plaintiff’s Order * wherein it is asked that the Defendant be enjoined from hiring teachers to fill the positions presently vacant in the Edgeley Public School District. That the Defendant having complied with all laws and statutes of the State of North Dakota relating to teacher contracts and the Plaintiff having failed to comply with the same, said Defendant has no alternative but to fill said vacant teacher’s positions as soon as possible in order to be in a position to provide education and schooling to it’s patrons when school commences again in the month of August, 1975. That your Defendant by and through the school board members is pursuant to Section 15-29-08 NDCC charged with the responsibility of providing an education system for the children of the Edgeley Public School District within the means and resources available to them. That in this regard your school board members have exercised their administrative powers within the confines of the laws of the State of North Dakota to the best of their ability.
“Your affiant in response to paragraph # 3 of Plaintiff’s Order * states that it has in the past negotiated with the Plaintiff in good faith towards the settlement of teaching contracts for the forthcoming year. That meetings with the Plaintiff occurred on March 17,1975, April 7,1975, April 14, 1975, April 21, 1975, April 28, 1975, May 13,1975, May 20,1975 and May 27, 1975 all for the express purpose of resolving the matter of teachers contracts but that said meetings failed to resolve the salary differences between the parties hereto.”
On June 3, 1975, the district court, after the hearing, ordered the temporary restraining order dissolved, and extended for two days the time within which the board must accept the teacher’s formal acceptance of the contract. Plaintiff appealed to this court and applied for a temporary injunction.
This court issued an order to defendant to show cause on June 9, 1975, why the application for temporary injunction pending appeal should not be granted, and on the same day, after a hearing, denied the application for a temporary injunction.
Thereafter, the defendant school board, on the 14th day of June, 1975, issued contracts to the teachers to be returnable on the 17th day of June, 1975. Plaintiff again contacted the district court for a temporary restraining order and was orally informed that the court would not issue a temporary restraining order or an injunction. The plaintiff thereafter made written application ex parte to this court for a temporary restraining order and injunction, which was granted to prevent the issues from becoming moot.
The primary issue before this court is whether or not the trial court [831]*831abused its discretion in denying the temporary restraining order and temporary injunction. Sand v. Peterson, 30 N.D. 171, 152 N.W. 271 (1915). The burden rests upon the plaintiff to establish affirmatively that the trial court abused its discretion. State ex rel. Holloway v. First American Bank & Trust Co., 186 N.W.2d 573 (N.D.1971); Lindsay v. Teamsters Union, Local No. 74, 97 N.W.2d 686 (N.D.1959). In resolving this issue we are bound by the facts as presented to the district court for its consideration. The action of the school board on June 14, 1975, was presented to the district court and to this court, but only for purposes of supporting the application for a temporary restraining order. Such action is not part of the appeal and will, therefore, not be considered.
Unfortunately, we have before us only a mere skeleton of the facts establishing chronological events, without any significant evidence as to- what happened at the “negotiation table” or why certain proposed meetings were extremely brief or were not held at all. Facts relating thereto could be important in view of the basic allegation of charging the school board with failure to negotiate in good faith. Even though the facts are scanty, to determine if the trial court abused its discretion, we need to examine the provisions of Chapter 15-38.1 with Sections 15-47-27 and 15-29-08(10), N.D.C.C., to determine if any legal obligations, rights, or privileges were created, and, if so, did defendant fail to comply with or perform such obligation, and was plaintiff denied any such legal right or privilege by action of defendant.
We believe, in construing statutes which are pari materia, every effort should be made to give meaningful effect to each without rendering one or the other useless. Reconciliation is the goal if it is possible. The legislative intent is important and is most frequently determined from the language employed.
The purpose of the Teachers’ Representation and Negotiation Act is set forth in Section 15-38.1-01, N.D.C.C., as follows: “In order to promote the growth and development of education in North Dakota which is essential to the welfare of its people, it is hereby declared to be the policy of this state to promote the improvement of personnel management and relations between school boards of public school districts and their certificated employees by providing a uniform basis for recognizing the right of public school certificated employees to join organizations of their own choice and be represented by such organization in their professional and employment relationships with the public school districts.”
The good faith requirements are set out in Section 15-38.1-12, N.D.C.C., as follows:
“1. The school board, or its representatives, and the representative organization, selected by the appropriate negotiating unit, or its representatives, shall have the duty to meet at reasonable times at the request of either party and to negotiate in good faith with respect to:
“a. Terms and conditions of employment and employer-employee relations.
“b. The formulation of an agreement, which may contain provision for binding arbitration.
“e. Any question arising out of interpretation of an existent agreement.
“2. The parties must execute a written contract incorporating any agreement reached if requested by either party.
“3. Either party to a contract negotiated under this section may modify or terminate the contract on its annual anniversary date by giving notice of its desire to modify or terminate to the other party not less than sixty days prior to the annual anniversary date.
“4. The obligations imposed in this section shall not compel either party to [832]*832agree to a proposal or' to make a concession.”
The contract mentioned in subsection 3 refers to an agreement reached between the parties as stated in subsection 2. The term “contract” does not refer to the individual contract between the board and the teacher. This becomes clear upon examining the provisions of subsection 2 of Section 15-38.1-14, which provides as follows:
“Nothing contained herein is intended to or shall conflict with, contravene, abrogate, or diminish the powers, authority, duties, and responsibilities vested in boards of education by the statutes and laws of the state of North Dakota.”
Keeping in mind the provisions of subsection 2 of Section 15-38.1-14, N.D.C.C., we now examine the provisions of Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C., which are as follows:
“Any teacher who has been employed by any school district or the director of institutions in this state during any school year, shall be notified in writing by the school board or the director of institutions, as the ease may be, not earlier than the- fifteenth day of February and not later than the fifteenth day of April in the school year in which he or she has been employed to teach, of the determination not to renew the teacher’s contract for the ensuing school year, if such determination has been made; and failure to give such written notice on or before said date shall constitute an offer to renew the contract for the ensuing school year under the same terms and conditions as the contract for the then current year. On or before April fifteenth in any year and not earlier than February fifteenth, all teachers shall be notified of a date, which shall not be less than thirty days after the date of such notice, upon which they will be required to accept or reject proffered re-employment, and failure on the part of the the teacher to accept said offer within- such time shall be deemed to be a rejection of the offer. Any teacher who shall have accepted the offer of re-employment, either by the action or nonaction of the school board or the director of institutions, on or before April fifteenth, as herein provided, shall be entitled to the usual written contract for the ensuing school year, as provided by law and shall notify the school board or the director of institutions in writing of his or her acceptance or rejection on or before the date specified or before May fifteenth, whichever is earlier. Failure on the part of the teacher to provide such notification shall relieve the school board or the director of institutions of the continuing contract provision of sections 15-47-26 through 15-47-28. Nothing in this section shall be construed as in any manner repealing or limiting the operation of any existing law with reference to the dismissal of teachers for cause.”
and the provisions of Section 15-29-08 (10), N.D.C.C., which are as follows:
“To contract with, employ, and pay all teachers in the schools and, for cause, to dismiss or suspend any teacher when the interests of the school may require it. Every teacher shall be required to hold a valid North Dakota teaching certificate issued by the superintendent of public instruction. No person who is related to any member of the board by blood or marriage shall be employed as a teacher without the concurrence of two-thirds of the board.”
It becomes quite clear that the Legislature did not intend to either repeal or to amend by implication, or otherwise, any of the provisions of Section 15-47-27 and Section 15-29-08 (10). The Legislature, in Section 15-38.1-14 (2), N.D.C.C., employed language to insure that no such intent would be read into the provisions of Chapter 15-38.1, N.D.C.C. Whether this is wise or not is not for us to say. This court, in Huso v. Bismarck Public School Board, 219 N.W.2d 100 (N.D.1974), and in Pollock v. McKenzie Public School District, 221 N.W.2d 521 (N.D.1974), had under consider[833]*833ation the provisions of Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C. The court gave no indication that the provisions of Section 15-47-27 were other than mandatory.
It appears that the Legislature, in enacting Chapter 15-38.1, was aware that teachers negotiating on their own, either as individuals or self-styled groups, probably were not as effective or persuasive as a representative more learned in the process of negotiation would be and, therefore, provided for an organization which could undertake the causes of the teachers relating to their employment and profession. See Section 15-38.1-09, N.D.C.C.
The Act also provides for impasse procedures under Section 15-38.1-13, N.D. C.C., which were not resorted to by either party. We are aware that the commission under the impasse procedure does not have any binding authority but merely has the authority to make public its findings after a certain period of time.
This provision, and other provisions in the Act, lead us to' believe that the Legislature intended that the representative for a negotiating unit or the fact-finding commission, as the case may be, resort to persuasion rather than to compulsory or mandatory proceedings.
A question was raised why the negotiating proceedings did not begin sooner, and the response was that the school board and, for that matter, the teachers had to await first the adjournment of the Legislature so as to be able to take into account any laws enacted that may touch upon school district revenues and other related items.
We have been urged by plaintiff to construe Chapter 15-38.1 so as to provide that when negotiations are in progress the provisions of Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C., are suspended with reference to the school board. We are unable to find any language which permits this court to reach this conclusion, nor has any language been pointed out under which this court could place such a construction. To do so would require this court to legislate, which is a power vested in the Legislature and the people, but not in the court.
As has been pointed out in the amicus brief, there is a dire need for legislation delineating and making appropriate adjustments between Chapter 15-38.1 and Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C. Such adjustment would require legislation. It is also brought out that, depending upon the time element, the provisions of Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C., in one instance may be an advantage to the school board, whereas in another instance the advantage could be in favor of the teacher. Likewise, a temporary restraining order and injunction can unduly tip the advantage to one or the other party.
The phrase “good faith” is difficult to define and is almost impossible to apply without an evidentiary hearing in which all of the pertinent facts are brought out.
The district court in its order dissolving the restraining order and denying the temporary injunction dated June 3, 1975, found that the defendant, Edgeley School District, complied with all of the laws and statutes of the State of North Dakota in regard to the hiring of teachers and that there was no basis for granting the injunctive relief.
We basically agree that the school board attempted to follow the appropriate statutes even though in one or two instances it did more than the statutes required. In making this observation we are also aware that the teachers, in response to the acts of the school board, also acted beyond what the statute contemplates. Such acts, however, we believe were on a good faith basis. They do not constitute a violation of law, and in this respect we agree with the district court because we do not find that the defendant has failed to comply with or to perform any duties or obligations im[834]*834posed by law. Neither do we find that any legal rights or privileges granted to the plaintiff by law have been denied to plaintiff as a result of the actions by the defendant. The plaintiff has failed to meet the burden of proof. We therefore conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant a temporary injunction and by dissolving the temporary restraining order.
Case law on collective bargaining and good faith negotiations arising out of federal or sister state Acts which have been called to our attention are not of much assistance in this instance because of dissimilarities between, or absence of, key provisions in the respective Acts. Neither is case law arising out of labor disputes in the private sector, as distinguished from the public sector, of any significant assistance.
We believe the school board and the negotiating unit can enter into contracts under the provisions of Section 15-38.1-12, N.D.C.C., whereby both parties would waive the rights and privileges set out in Section 15-47-27, N.D.C.C. This, however, was not done.
Finally, as to the allegation that the defendant failed to negotiate in good faith, we do not have sufficient facts before us to make this determination. This question can be resolved only upon evaluation of evidence produced at an evidentiary hearing. From the facts before us we cannot assume the existence of bad faith.
The temporary injunction issued by this court is dissolved and the order of the trial court dissolving its restraining order and refusing to grant a temporary injunction is affirmed. Motion for attorney’s fees is denied.
This being a question of public interest and concern, no costs are assessed.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON and PEDERSON, JJ., concur.
This apparently refers to the trial court’s order to show cause.