 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Enid7/5/2005
__ P.3d __
The dispositive question presented in this appeal is whether the Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective Bargaining Act is a special law prohibited by the Okla. Const., art. 5, § 46. We answer the question in the affirmative. We find the Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective Bargaining Act is unconstitutional.
I. Background
The Oklahoma Legislature passed the Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective Bargaining Act (the Act) during its 2004 session. The Act grants qualifying municipal employees the right to organize and choose representation for the purpose of collective bargaining and requires municipal employers to recognize, negotiate and bargain with employee representatives. It defines municipal employers to be those municipalities with populations greater than 35,000. The Act provides that it shall be administered by the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB).
Although an express purpose of the Act is "to promote orderly and constructive employment relations between municipal employers and their employees," the parties agree that the Act presently applies to only eleven municipalities in Oklahoma. They are incorporated cities that have populations greater than 35,000: Broken Arrow, Edmond, Enid, Lawton, Midwest City, Moore, Muskogee, Norman, Oklahoma City, Stillwater, and Tulsa. The promotion of "orderly and constructive labor relations" promised by the Act is granted to only this small number of Oklahoma cities.
When the Act became effective on November 1, 2004, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees a/k/a AFSCME OK Organizing Committee (Union) requested certification from PERB to represent the City of Enid's qualifying employees. On November 4, 2004, PERB gave notice of Union's request to the City of Enid and directed the City to post the notice. Under PERB's emergency rules, PERB must certify Union as the Enid municipal employees' representative unless PERB receives a request from a rival union within fifteen days.
On November 19, 2004, the City of Enid filed an action against PERB and Union seeking a temporary restraining order, temporary and permanent injunctions, and declaratory judgment that the Act is special legislation contrary to the Oklahoma Constitution, art. 5, §§ 46 and 59 and art. 18, § 3(a). PERB and Union responded, urging that the district court not hastily decide the constitutional issues in a temporary injunction hearing. At the hearing on November 22, 2004, the district court granted a temporary restraining order and set a briefing schedule. Thereafter, the City of Enid filed its motion for summary judgment.
On summary judgment, the district court determined that the classification of municipalities with populations greater than 35,000 is arbitrary and discriminates against employees of municipalities with populations less than 35,000 and that the Act is a special law that cannot stand because it is not impossible to design a general law. The district court decided the Act is contrary to the Okla. Const., art. 5, §§ 46 and 59 and issued a permanent injunction against PERB. Union timely filed a petition in error and PERB filed a petition in error as co-appellant in Union's appeal. We retained the appeal. The parties presented oral arguments to the Court en banc on May 10, 2005.
II. Standard of Review
The issues presented for review are legal questions which we review de novo. Gladstone v. Bartlesville Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 30, 2003 OK 30, , 66 P.3d 442, 445. Our de novo review is plenary, independent and non-deferential. Id.
III. Arguments of the Parties
The essence of the City of Enid'
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Oklahoma Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|