 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
City of Enid7/5/2005
general statewide application, Maule implicitly severed the 35,000 ADA provision.
The collective bargaining act in Maule applied to all school districts. This Court severed the offending language to preserve the legislative intent to allow collective bargaining in every school district in the state. The 35,000-ADA restriction in Maule was a part of a provision for a narrow and incidental procedure that could be extended to all school districts in order to preserve legislative intent.
In this case, unlike in Maule, the 35,000-population restriction triggers application of the Act to a municipality. The only legislative intent to be gleaned from the Act in this case is that the Legislature intended to authorize collective bargaining only in municipalities with 35,000 or more inhabitants. The whole Act hinges on the constitutionally-offensive 35,000-population restriction. We absolutely cannot find it is apparent that the Legislature would have passed the Act without the 35,000-population restriction.
We have refused to sever constitutionally-offensive language when it is apparent that the Legislature would not have enacted the statute without the invalid parts, Englebrecht v. Day, 1949 OK 154, 208 P.2d 538, or the offending language is an integral and significant portion of the whole, Tulsa Expo. & Fair v. Bd. of County Commissioners, 1970 OK 67, , 468 P.2d 501, 507. In this case, the offensive language is a significant and integral part of the Act.
We cannot sever the constitutionally-offensive phrase "with a population greater than thirty-five thousand (35,000) persons" from the definition of municipal employer. To do so would extend the right of collective bargaining to the employees of every city and town in Oklahoma when the Legislature clearly did not intend that result. To do so would rewrite the Act. We do not sit as a super legislature. See City of Hugo v. State ex rel. Public Employees Relations Bd., 1994 OK 134, , 886 P.2d 485, 495. We will not rewrite this Act, especially to a result not intended by the Legislature. We hold the Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective Bargaining Act, 11 O.S.Supp.2004, §§ 51-200 - 51-220, to be unconstitutional in its entirety.
VIII. Conclusion
The Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective Bargaining Act grants the privilege of collective bargaining to eligible employees of municipalities with populations greater than 35,000. The Act does not apply to all cities in the state and therefore it is a special law. The Act is subject to the provisions of the Okla. Const., art. 5, § 46 prohibiting special laws regulating affairs of cities. The language "with a population greater than thirty-five thousand (35,000) persons in the definition of "municipal employer" in 11 O.S.Supp.2004, § 51-202(12) offends the Okla. Const., art. 5, § 46. The constitutionally-offensive language is an integral part of the Act and cannot be severed. The Oklahoma Municipal Employee Collective Bargaining Act is a special law prohibited by the Okla. Const., art. 5, § 46 and unconstitutional unless the Legislature removes the constitutionally-offensive language.
SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDER OF DISTRICT COURT AFFIRMED.
WATT, C.J., WINCHESTER, V.C.J., and OPALA (by separate writing), TAYLOR and COLBERT, JJ., concur.
KAUGER, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
LAVENDER, J., (by separate writing) dissents in part.
HARGRAVE, J., and EDMONDSON, J., (by separate writing) dissent.
OPALA, J., concurring.
To be tested for conformity to Art. 5 §46, Okl. Const., is that provision of 11 O.S. Supp. 2004 §51-202(12) in the Oklahoma
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.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|