NWOr~le Jukm Dai#& Jr. 

Criminal Dirtrict Attorney 

C~lvortoa &nmty 

GalWstoa; Taxam 

Opinion No. N-77 

&r nlgilt Of 88ployur'of 

l c o lmty h wp it8l to 

be repn~oatadby. 

union which door 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 l trika." 

Article Sl54c, V.A.C.S., rod0 u follomr 

.' 

“suction 1. It ir declared to ba yaiwt th8 @UC -~ 'I' 

pol$cy of the Stite of Teamfor any official or pop of officiala of the Itwo. or of a County, City, lhmicipdity or 

other political l ubdiviaion of thr Stato,,to oatu into l 

tiollectivc bergaiaing contract with l labor or#aaisatim rerpactiq the vyu, hours, or conditiona of aploymut of 

public aployoar, and my l ucb contucto entuod into bftor 

tha l ffacticn 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 much official or group 

of officiala to tacomica a labor or#&lratiar 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 ang-a in l trikm or or~mirad work l toppyom against the 

Stat. of,Taxu or any political wbdivioion thraof. Aay 

much uployaq uho participate in such l rtrilu o h a l ‘forfait all civil l 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 employment or prior eaploym.ot, providing, hwever, that the xi&t of &n lndividwl to ceeee 

work l hell not be ebridged eo long ee the individuel ie 

not l ctlq 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 ml nhell be denied 

public employment by reum of xemberehip or n-etchip in e lebor org.nir.tioa. 

“Section 5. The term ‘lebor orgenizetion’ meme 

eny orgenisetioa of l ny kind, or any l gency or employee, 

r.preeentetioo committo. or plan, lo vhich op1oy.m perticip.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.‘ 

“Section 6. Th. provlriom of thie Act l hrll uot 

impair the l xietiag rbht of public aployee. to preunt 

~rievancce conceralnp their veger. hours of work, or taxditione of work iadividuelly or through . repreeeot.tiv. 

that dome not cl&m the right to l trike. 

“Section 7. If eny cl~uee, eentence. perqreph or 

pm-t of thle Act or the .pplc.tim thereof to any perem 

or circumetencem, l h.11 for my remon be edjudged to be 

invelid, ouch judgment .h.ll not .ffect. impair. or inmlidet. the reminder of this Act .nd the l pplicetioo 

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 firet vu &y&y . Ci 

292 S.U. 2d 172, (Tu. Cfv. App. 1956. orrot ref. 0. ry 8.1 

tY Of D.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 l ct shell not 

impair the existing right of public employcce to preeent 

grievencee individuelly or through e representative. We 

do not believe thet theee l ectime era in conflict. The 

etetute ID very cleer in forbidding collective bergeining. 

end the recognition of l union l e l bergeining agent, end 

declering null end void any contrects entered into between 

municipel l uthorities end eny l uch 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 l bove provieione. The prereatetion 

of a grievence ia in effect a Gnileterel procedure, vbereee e cmtrect or egreeaent reeulting from collective bargeining amt of e neceeeity be e biletarel procedure culmineting in l lnceting of the rind. involved end binding 

the pertiee to the agrement. The praeentetion of l grievance in #imply what the wrde imply. end no more. and here 

it muet be remembered thet the privilege ie extended only 

with the expreee rertriction tiut @trike8 by public ~loyeer 

are illegel end unlewful, l e ie collective bergaining, l o 

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 

l tetute 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 orgeniratiwe were velid. Such ordinencee me thoee here involved ere lx cleer conflict with Art. 5154~. one of the 

Generel Leve of the Stete of Tear. Art. XI, fi 5 of 

the Conetitutim of Texu, Vemoa’r Am. St., providee 

that no ordinmce pe...d under l city cherter ehell cmrein any provirion inconeietont vith the Generel Len of 

the Stete. l?a believe that the peeeege of the Above l t.tute 

in 1947 rmdere tha ordinancea here involved void, beuuee 

they collflict with the valid law of the Stat. of Tuee. 

The l tetute 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 l ucb 

- 349 - 
. 

. . 

-. 

Hon. Julee Demieoi, Jr., pege 4 W-77) 

en orgeairetioo they would be eumerily diemieeed from their 

-Pbmt. We bold, therefore, that thie l ction end the 

ordinencee of the City of Dellu are sontredictory to md 

in violetion of the General Leve of the State of TBXAB, 

end era therefore void end unenforceebla.” 

l@xt in &$,& Iadeoendeot School District v m 

peder i#,, t 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. Boverlv v City of w Tex. 

civ. App., 292 8. W. 26.172. The AC; (Article SU4cj deele 

uclueively with ‘public employear, labor or~mdutione, 

l tTlk e*. etch.’ ad with reepect to l ppellente’ point 3-b. 

It eppeere elmoat too plein for l rgumeat that 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; 

l ee Art. 51548, V. A. C. S. Aleo in the Netionel Labor 

Baletione Act. 29 U.S.C.A. 8 151 et. l eq . (excluding public employeee, however), ‘repreeentetiva’ ie &fined am 

including ‘eny individuel or labor orgeafretfon.’ In the 

wording of Sec. 6, A# appelleee proporlp atate. ‘raprematl tiwí wee wed ineteed of lebor union or lebor or~mairatim l o AIJ to afford A vider choice of yency to the 

public employee.” 

It ie therefore our opinion thet Section 6 of Article. 5154~. 

provide8 thet public employmae have the right to prernt grievuace8 concemiag their vegee,,houre of work, or conditime of work through l labor 

uoiou that dome not 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 Attorney General 

APPROvgD: 

OPMICN CCWITTEE 

8.vthorUe Phillip., Ch.im.n 

W. V. Geppart, Co-Chairma 

Sam Kelley 

Lenny Zwiener 

Dougl.. chi1ton 

w. 0. Shultz 

STAfT L&L ASSISTANT 

A. J. Carubbi. Jr. 

- 351 - 

. 

, . 

: 

. . 

a’