Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion ( 1967 )

NWOr~le Jukm Dai#& Jr. Opinion No. N-77
Criminal Dirtrict Attorney
C~lvortoa &nmty &r nlgilt Of 88ployur'of
GalWstoa; Taxam l c o lmty ’h wp it8l to
be repn~oatadby.
union whichdoor not
.bargaio or clai~'tha
risht to 8trika.
Dur nr. Dwimlir
You have raquuud ao opinion of this dffice concaves the
fOllouill~ quwtiau
%hubor aployau of th8 Galcrraton County Memorial
Uorpital bmva tha r&ht, to bo raprerentod by l union rhicb
-‘not hu@n or clair tb ri&t to ltrika."
Article Sl54c, V.A.C.S., rod0 u follomr
.'
“suction1. It ir declared to ba yaiwt th8 @UC -~ 'I'
pol$cyof the Stite of Teamfor any official or pop of of-
ficialaof the Itwo. or of a County, City,lhmicipdityor
other political lubdiviaion of thr Stato,,to oatu into l
tiollectivc bergaiaing contract labor or#aaisatim
with l re-
rpactiq the vyu, hours,or conditiona
of aploymut of
public aployoar, and my lucb contucto entuod into bftor
tha lffacticn data of this Act ahall be null aud void.
“8wtion 2. It lr doclara
to be qaiart the public
policy of the Stata of Tuu
for any muchofficial or group
to tacomica a laboror#&lratiar
of officiala u tha hu-
@nSn$ uwt for any Broup of public mployrr.
“BWti0n 3. It ia doclarod to bm qdnot the public
policy of tbo State of Tuu for public aployou to an-
g-a inltrikm or or~mirad work ltoppyom against the
Stat. of,Taxu or any political wbdivioion thraof. Aay
muchuployaq uho participate in such l rtrilu o h a l ‘for-
fait all civill rvlca,r*tm, ra-agloyawnt rigt.m urd
soy o.tber righta, bonofite, or privllowm ubicb ho oajoya
'.
- 347 -
.I
NO& Julee Demieoi, Jr;, peg. 2 (U-77)
ee l result of hie employmentor prior eaploym.ot, pro-
viding, hwever, that the xi&t of &n lndividwl to ceeee
wo r klhell not be ebridged eo long ee the individuel ie
not lctlq In concert uith others in in orgenired work
*toppu= *
“S.ctitm 4. It ie dec1u.d to be the public policy
of the Stete of Taxer tbt no p er mnlhell be denied
public employmentby reum of xemberehip or n-et-
chip in e lebor org.nir.tioa.
“Section 5. The term ‘lebor orgenizetion’ meme
eny orgenisetioa of lny kind, or any lgency or employee,
r.preeentetioo committo. or plan, lo vhich op1oy.m pert-
icip.te end which uiata for the pur~oae. in whole or ix
pert. of dulinp with oa. or more cmployere concerning
grievemae, lebor dimputee, mgee, retee of pay. hours
of employmmt, or condition. of work.‘
“Section6.Th. provlriom of thie Act lhrll uot
impair the lxietiag rbht of public aployee. to preunt
~rievancce conceralnp theirveger. hours of work, or tax-
ditione of work iadividuelly or through . repreeeot.tiv.
that dome not cl&m the right to ltrike.
“Section 7. If eny cl~uee, eentence. perqreph or
pm-t of thle Act or the .pplc.tim thereof to any perem
or circumetencem, lh.11 for my remon be edjudged to be
invelid, ouch judgment .h.ll not .ffect.impair. or in-
mlidet. the reminder of this Act .nd the lpplicetioo
thereof. but ehell be confia.d in ite operetioo to the
portion of the Act directly iavo1v.d in the contrwemy
in which judgmrmt &ml1 have b.m rendered end to the
permo or circumetence. involved.”
It ie the opinion of thie offic. thet employ..r of the C.lv..too
County Mmoriel Hospice1 mey belong to l l&or orgeniretioo of their choice
end preeent prievenccs through l lebor orgeniretion that doas not claim
the rQht to strike or bergein collectively.
Two Court of Civil Apperla cue have dimcueeed Article 51%~
rpccificelly Sectlone 4 end 6. The firetvu &y&y . CitY Of D.1- .
292 S.U. 2d 172, (Tu. Cfv. App. 1956. orrot ref. 0. ry 8.1 Th 0 court
held Article 5154~ voided l city ordinance ptohibitiug union maberehip
by public employace. The Court etated in pert:
‘We cannot find merit fn eppellre’ poeitioa that
the statute iteelf ie cwtr.dictory. or cantdam cat?+
dictory tome.‘ ~ppelleor ur‘e that geetime 1 md 2 are
- 343 -
Hon. Jul.8 Demiani, Jr., peg8 3 (M-77)
in conflict with Sectim 6, end allege thet the firet two
eectione in prohibiting collective bergoining conflict
with Section 6, which providee that this lct shell not
impair the existing right of public employcce to preeent
grievencee individuelly or through e representative. We
do not believe thet theee lectime era in conflict. The
etetute ID very cleer in forbidding collective bergeining.
end the recognition of l union le l bergeining agent, end
declering null end void any contrects entered into between
municipel luthorities end eny luch orgeniretion on that
besir; but bcceus. it petPita public anployeee to preeent
griavencea individuelly or through l representetlve, the
statute dome not contredict iteelf, nor doee Sectim 6
&mflict vith the lbove provieione. The prereatetion
of a grievence ia in effecta Gnileterel procedure, vbere-
ee e cmtrect or egreeaent reeulting from collective bar-
geining amt of e neceeeity be e biletarel procedure cul-
mineting in l lnceting of the rind. involved end binding
the pertiee to the agrement. The praeentetion of l griev-
ance in #implywhat the wrde imply. end no more. and here
it muet be rememberedthet the privilege ie extended only
with the expreee rertriction tiut @trike8 by public ~loyeer
are illegel end unlewful, le ie collective bergaining, lo
it la clear thet the .t.tuto carefully prohibita striking
end collective berg&t&g. but doeo permit the preeeatetion
of grievenceo, e unileterel proceeding raeulting in no
loam of eovereignty by the micipelity. We think the
ltetute la cleer. unambiguoue .od not contredictory of
iteelf.
“We think the triel court vu in error in holding
that the ordiruncee of the City of Dellee prohibiting
itm employee. from joining or belonging to labor orgen-
iratiwe were velid. Such ordinencee me thoee here in-
volved ere lx cleer conflict with Art. 5154~. one of the
Generel Leve of the Steteof Tear. Art. XI, fi 5 of
the Conetitutim of Texu, Vemoa’r Am. St., providee
that no ordinmce pe...d u nder l city cherter ehell cm-
rein any provirion inconeietont vith the Generel Len of
the Stete. l?a believe that the peeeege of the Above lt.tute
in 1947 rmdere tha ordinancea here involved void, beuuee
they collflict with the valid law of the Stat. of Tuee.
The ltetute l pacifically refera to public employeea 5.n
Section 4 end la clur and unequivocel in ita tarme. The
Dellee ordinences era l quelly cleer end unequivocel in
prohibiting city employace from joining or belonging to
lebor uaiono. end the enwar by the City Council to the
latter written by the two firmen vee very definite in
refuoing perrieeion, end #tat* that if they joined lucb
- 349 -
.
-.
. .
Hon. Julee Demieoi, Jr., pege 4 W-77)
en orgeairetioo they would be eumerily diemieeed from their
-Pbmt. We bold, therefore, that thie lction end the
ordinencee of the City of Dellu are sontredictory to md
in violetion of the GeneralLeve of the State of TBXAB,
end era therefore void end unenforceebla.”
l@xt in &$,& Iadeoendeot School District v m
i#,, t
peder at.
330 9. U. 2d 702 (Tax; Civ. App. 1959, error ref.n. r. a.). the
Court maid:
“Since enactment of above quoted legieletioo iu 1947,
tid withio :ta lialt~tiozw, public employtea say become
wderm of l labor vaion. Boverlvv City of w Tex.
civ. App., 292 8. W. 26.172. The AC; (Article SU4cj deele
uclueively with ‘public employear, labor or~mdutione,
ltTlk e*. etch.’ ad with reepect to l ppellente’ point 3-b.
It eppeereelmoat too plein for lrgumeatthat the vord
‘repreeeotetive’ of Section 6 ie referebla to Labor Unioru
that do not dab A right to errike. Ia the field of
labor l~v, our Legislature hu conelatently employed the
tam ‘repruentative’ u indicative of l labor union;
lee Art. 51548, V. A. C. S. Aleo in the Netionel Labor
Baletione Act. 29 U.S.C.A.8 151 et. leq .(excluding pub-
lic employeee, however), ‘repreeentetiva’ ie &fined am
including ‘eny individuel or labor orgeafretfon.’ In the
wording of Sec. 6, A# appelleee proporlp atate. ‘rapremat-
ltiw’wee wed ineteed of lebor union or lebor or~mair-
atim lo AIJ to afford A vider choice of yency to the
public employee.”
It ie therefore our opinion thet Section6 of Article. 5154~.
provide8 thet public employmaehave the right to prernt grievuace8 con-
cemiag their vegee,,houre of work, or conditime of work through l labor
uoiou that domenot c&L tbe right to #trike or bergein collectively.
Public employeea beve the right to preeent grievencee
concerning their wegee. bourr of work, or conditiooe of
work through A lebor union thet dome not claim the ri&t
to #trike or bargain collectively.
very truly,
Genortl of Tcxu
-_. .
1
.
.
, .
HOa. Jules DAmiAni. Jr.~. pege 5 (M-77)
Prepared by Ronald E. Luna
bAiAtAUt AttorneyGeneral
APPROvgD:
OPMICN CCWITTEE
8.vthorUe Phillip., Ch.im.n
W. V. Geppart,Co-Chairma
SamKelley
Lenny Zwiener
Dougl.. chi1ton
w. 0. Shultz
STAfT L&L ASSISTANT
A. J. Carubbi. Jr.
: . .
a’
- 351 -