rlOEN. L EZLl. 

*- aOctober 16. 1974 

The Honorable Jackie St. Clair 

Commiorioncr 

Texar Department of Labor 

and Standard6 

Box 12157, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Opinion NO. H- 422 

Re: Duty of public officials to 

meet with public employees 

or their representatives to 

diocurr grievancea. 

Dear Commi8aioner St. Clair: 

You have requested our opinion aa to the extent of the duty, if any, 

of publtc official8 to meet with public employees or their representatives 

to discuea grievance*. 

Article 5154~. V. T. C. S., forbtdo collective bargaining between 

public employerr and their employees. At the rama time Article 5154~. 

in Sec. 6. recognisee and reaffirme the right of public cmp1oyce.a to 

prtrent their grievances: 

The provirtons of thir Act shall not impair 

the exirting right of public employee8 to prerent 

grievancea concerning their wager, boura of 

wor~k, or conditions of work individually or through 

a representative that doea not claim the right to 

strike. 

In Beverly v. City of Dallas, 292 S. W. 2d 172 (Tex. Civ.App. --El Paeo 

1956, writ ref., n. r. l . ), the validity of Article 5154~ was challenged on 

the,ground that it fatally contradicted itoelf in permitting public employees 

to prerent grievancea while l imultaneoualy prohibiting collective bargaining. 

The court rejected this argument, explaining that there ie a dirtinction 

between collective bargaining and the presentation of grievance*: 

The preacntation of a grievance is in effect a 

untlatoral procedure, whercae a contract or agreement rerulting from collective bargaining must 

of neceaatty be a bilateral procedure culminating 

p. 1962 
The Honorable Jackie St. Clair, page 2 (H-4221 

in a meeting of the minds involved and binding 

the parties to the agreement. The presentation 

of a grievance is simply what the words imply, 

and no more, and here it must be remembered 

that the privilege is extended only with the express restritition that strike6 by public employees 

are illegal and unlawful, as is collective bargaining, so it is clear that the statute carefully 

: ,. ,, “prohibits striking and collective bargaining; but 

: does permit the presentation of grievances, a 

unilateral proceeding resulting in no loss of 

sovereignty by the municipality. (292 S. W. 2d 

at 1761 

See also Dallas Ind. Sch. Dist. v. American Federation of State, County and 

Municipal Employees. 330 S. W. 2d 702 (Tex. Civ.App. --Dallas 1959, writ 

ref., n. r. e. ), Attorney .General Opiniona H-389 (1974) ,and M-77 (19671. 

- Under Article 5154c, then, public employees are given a right to present 

&ievs+ncer, either individually or through a representative which does not 

.dlaim the right to strike. This right, given as an alternative to collective 

bargaining, is of little value if public employer6 are entitled to refuse to 

hear or discuss grievances. Having the right to present grievance6 necessarily implies that someone in a position of authority is required to hear 

them even though he is under no legal compulsion to take any action to rectify them. Otherwise the right to preaeat grievances would be rendered 

meaningless. Therefore it is our opinion that implicit in Article 5154c, 

Sec. 6 is the notion that public officials should meet with public employee6 

or their representatives at reasonable times and places to hear their ‘.,.. 

grievance6 concerning wagci, hourr of work, and condition6 of work: 

.~., 

.,,., 

SUMMARY I’ _’ 

Under Article SK&, See. 6. public employer6 should 

meet with the employ~ees or their designated representatives 

at reasonable time6 and’p&s to hear grievances concerning 

wages, hours of wotk;+and conditions of work. 

/Very truly yours, 

p<6:ttorney General of Texas 

. 
The Honorable Jackie St. Clair. page 3 (H-42.!) 

APPROV,ED: 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 1964