Title: Kain v. Myers

State: oregon

Issuer: Oregon Supreme Court

Document:

Filed: December 13, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON
KRIS KAIN and TRICIA BOSAK,
Petitioners,
	v.
HARDY MYERS,
 Attorney General,
 

State of Oregon,
Respondent,
	and
BILL SIZEMORE,
Intervenor.
(SC S48796)
	En Banc
	On petition to review ballot title.
	Argued and submitted November 1, 2001.
	Margaret S. Olney, Smith, Gamson, Diamond & Olney, Portland,
argued the cause and filed the petition for petitioners.
	Jennifer S. Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued
the cause and filed the answering memorandum for respondent. 
With her on the answering memorandum were Hardy Myers, Attorney
General, and Michael D. Reynolds, Solicitor General.
	Gregory W. Byrne, Byrne & Associates, Portland, argued the
cause and filed the memorandum in support for intervenor.
	DURHAM, J.
	Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.
	DURHAM, J.
	This is a proceeding under ORS 250.085(2) in which
petitioners challenge a ballot title certified by the Attorney
General for Initiative Petition 91 (2002).  The proposed
initiative, if adopted, would amend the Oregon Constitution by
restricting the authority of government employers to sign certain
agreements regarding payment of money to unions and by relieving
public employee unions of the duty to represent or provide
services to employees who do not join the union or pay for its
services.
	Initiative Petition 91 (2002) provides:
	"BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OREGON:
	"The Constitution of the State of Oregon is amended by
adding the following section:
	"Section 1.  No government employer shall sign or
otherwise make a contract or agreement (including an
extension to a contract or agreement in existence as of
the effective date of this section) that (a) requires a
public employee who is not a member of a union to pay
money to a union for any reason, or (b) authorizes
deducting money from the paycheck of a public employee
who is not a member of a union, and transferring the
money to a union or its agent or assign without the
employee's written authorization.  No public employee
union shall be required to represent or provide other
services to a public employee who is not a member of
the union or does not pay the union for its services. 
No employee shall be discriminated against for not
joining or being represented by a public employee
union."
		The Attorney General certified the following ballot
title for the proposed initiative:
"AMENDS CONSTITUTION: PUBLIC EMPLOYERS
 IN UNIONIZED

WORKPLACE CANNOT SIGN
 CERTAIN LABOR CONTRACTS, 

UNIONS NEED
 NOT REPRESENT NONMEMBERS
		"RESULT OF 'YES' VOTE: 'Yes' vote prohibits public
employers in unionized workplace from signing contracts
requiring nonunion employees to pay money to union;
union may refuse to represent nonpayers.
		"RESULT OF 'NO' VOTE: 'No' vote rejects amendment
prohibiting public employers from signing contracts
requiring nonunion employees to pay money to union;
retains laws requiring unions to represent nonpayers.
		"SUMMARY: Amends constitution.  Currently, public
employers in workplace where majority of employees have
voted to be represented by union may sign labor
contracts requiring employees who are not union members
to make payments in lieu of dues to union for
representation in collective bargaining.  Unions must
represent all employees in bargaining unit, including
nonmembers.  Measure prohibits public employers in
unionized workplaces from signing contracts requiring
nonmember employees to pay money to union for any
purpose and from deducting money from paycheck of any
nonmember for transfer to union without employee's
authorization.  Unions not required to represent public
employees who are not union members or who do not pay
for union services.  Prohibits discrimination against
public employees for not joining or being represented
by union.  Other provisions."
	This court reviews a ballot title for "substantial
compliance with the requirements of ORS 250.035."  ORS
250.085(5).  Petitioners challenge the sufficiency of the
caption, result statements, and summary of the Attorney General's
ballot title.  We have reviewed petitioners' challenges and, with
the exception of the argument regarding the result statements
discussed below, we conclude that the Attorney General's ballot
title substantially complies with statutory requirements.
	ORS 250.035(2)(b) requires a "yes" vote result
statement that is a "simple and understandable statement of not
more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure
is approved."  ORS 250.035(2)(c) requires a "no" vote result
statement that is a "simple and understandable statement of not
more than 25 words that describes the result if the state measure
is rejected."
	Petitioners argue that the term "nonunion" in each
result statement is not appropriate, because it is either
inaccurate or confusing.  They point out that the phrase
"nonunion employees" does not appear in the proposed initiative,
is not synonymous with and does not describe employees who are
not union members, and generally refers (inaccurately, they
assert) to any employees who are not members of the union's
bargaining unit, such as confidential, supervisory, or managerial
employees. (1)
	The statutory requirements that the result statements
be "understandable" and "describe[] the result" of approval and
rejection of the proposed initiative, ORS 250.035(2)(b), (c), are
designed to protect the voters' interest in an accurate
disclosure of those respective results.  This court has stated
that misstatements, even by implication, of either existing law
or the law that the proposed measure would enact are not
appropriate in a ballot title.  Novick/Bosak v. Myers, 333 Or 18,
___, ___ P3d ___ (November 30, 2001) (slip op at ___); Dale v.
Kulongoski, 321 Or 108, 113, 894 P2d 462 (1995).  Such
misstatements potentially invite misleading arguments to support
passage or defeat of the proposed initiative.  
	We believe that the Attorney General intends the phrase
"nonunion employees" in the result statements to refer to members
of a public employee bargaining unit who are not union members
and who, therefore, do not pay union dues, but who may make fair-share payments in lieu of dues to the union. (2)  The question
before the court is whether "nonunion employees" accurately
describes that group of public employees.
	The dictionary definition of "nonunion" is:
		"1 : not belonging to or affiliated with a trade
union * * * 2 : not recognizing or favoring trade
unions or trade unionists."
Webster's Third New Int'l Dictionary, 1539 (unabridged ed 1993).
	The first of those definitions is broader in scope than
the employee group to which the Attorney General intends to
refer.  That definition includes any employee "not belonging to
or affiliated with" a union, i.e., a group that embraces not only
bargaining unit members who pay no money to a union but also all
other employees of the public employer, including supervisory and
confidential employees. (3)
	The second of the dictionary's definitions refers to a
distinct employee group, i.e., those who do not recognize or
favor unions.  That definition carries the implication of
political or philosophical opposition to unions.  Indeed, the
dictionary's word for that belief system is a related term,
"nonunionism," which the dictionary defines as follows:  "[T]he
theories, opinions, or practices of those who do not support
trade unions[.]"  Id.
	The foregoing discussion indicates that the term chosen
by the Attorney General, "nonunion," does not describe accurately
the employee group to which the Attorney General meant to refer. 
Moreover, the inaccuracy of that term likely will produce voter
confusion.   Voters familiar with the definitions discussed above
could infer incorrectly from the Attorney General's result
statements that the proposed initiative would preclude
contractually mandated payments to unions by supervisory and
confidential employees, as well as all employees who politically
oppose unions. 
	Another term in the result statements contributes to
the likelihood of voter confusion from the term "nonunion."  The
Attorney General uses the term "nonpayers" in each result
statement, apparently intending to refer to a union's bargaining
unit members who do not pay money to the union.  However, because
the result statements imply that the terms "nonpayers" and
"nonunion employees" are synonyms, the term "nonpayers" simply
reinforces, rather than eliminates, the problems noted above
regarding the term "nonunion."
	The Attorney General argues that petitioners' criticism
of the Attorney General's phrase, "nonunion employees," is faulty
because there is no meaningful difference between that phrase and
the phrase that petitioners recommend to the court, "non-union
members."  That argument is unresponsive to the question before
the court, that is, whether the ballot title certified by the
Attorney General substantially complies with statutory
requirements.  ORS 250.085(5).  Consequently, we do not address
that argument. (4) 
	We conclude that, because the term "nonunion" is
incorrect and confusing in this context, the Attorney General's
result statements do not state accurately "the result" if the
voters approve or reject the proposed initiative.  ORS
250.035(2)(b), (c). 
	Ballot title referred to the Attorney General for
modification.




1. 	Petitioners rely in part on ORS 243.650(19), which
defines "public employee" as follows:
		"'Public employee' means an employee of a public
employer but does not include elected officials,
persons appointed to serve on boards or commissions,
incarcerated persons working under section 41, Article
I of the Oregon Constitution, or persons who are
confidential employees, supervisory employees or
managerial employees."


2. 	ORS 243.650(10) defines "fair-share agreement" in part
as follows:
		"'Fair-share agreement' means an agreement between
the public employer and the recognized or certified
bargaining representative of public employees whereby
employees who are not members of the employee
organization are required to make an in-lieu-of-dues
payment to an employee organization except as provided
in ORS 243.666."

3. 	ORS 243.650(23) defines "supervisory employee" in part
as follows:
		"'Supervisory employee' means any individual
having authority in the interest of the employer to
hire, transfer, suspend, lay off, recall, promote,
discharge, assign, reward or discipline other
employees, or responsibly to direct them, or to adjust
their grievances, or effectively to recommend such
action, if in connection therewith, the exercise of
such authority is not of a merely routine or clerical
nature but requires the use of independent judgment."
		ORS 243.650(6) defines "confidential employee" as
follows:
		"'Confidential employee' means one who assists and
acts in a confidential capacity to a person who
formulates, determines and effectuates management
policies in the area of collective bargaining."


4. 	Because ORS 250.085(5) focuses the court's review on
the Attorney General's ballot title, the Attorney General's
criticisms of alternative words or phrases suggested by a ballot
title challenger often play no role in the court's analysis.  See
generally Order Adopting Temporary Amendments to ORAP 11.30,
Chief Justice Order No. 01-111 (October 24, 2001), Oregon
Appellate Court Advance Sheets No. 23 at A-13 (November 12, 2001)
(deleting from ORAP 11.30(4)(b) requirement that petitioner
include in body of petition proposed ballot title that petitioner
believes would comply substantially with statutory requirements).