rlOEN. L EZLl.

*- aOctober 16. 1974
The Honorable Jackie St. Clair Commiorioncr Texar Department of Labor andStandard6 Box 12157, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion NO. H- 422 Re: Duty ofpublic 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, ofpubltc official8 to meet with public employees or their representatives to discuea grievance*.
**Article** 5154~. V. T. C. S., forbtdo collective bargaining between public employerr andtheir employees. At the rama time Article 5154~. inSec. 6. recognisee and reaffirme the right ofpublic cmp1oyce.a to prtrent their grievances:

The provirtons ofthir **Act** shall notimpair the exirting right ofpublic employee8 toprerent grievancea concerning their wager, boura of wor~k,or conditions ofwork 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 ofArticle 5154~was challenged on the,ground thatit 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 andthe presentation of grievance*:

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

in a meeting of theminds involved andbinding the parties to the agreement. The presentation ofa grievance is simply what thewords imply, and nomore, and here it must be remembered thatthe privilege is extended only with the express restritition thatstrike6 by public employees are illegal andunlawful, as is collective bargaining, so it is clear thatthe statute carefully : ,. ,“prohibits , striking and collective bargaining; but : does permit the presentation of grievances, a unilateral proceeding resulting in noloss of sovereignty by themunicipality. (292 S.W. 2d at 1761 See also Dallas Ind.Sch. Dist. v. American Federation ofState, 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),andM-77 (19671.

- Under Article 5154c, then, public employees are given a right topresent &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 topresent grievance6 necessarily implies that someone in a position ofauthority is required to hear them even thoughhe is under nolegal 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 inArticle 5154c, Sec. 6 is the notionthat 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 ofwork: .~., .,,., 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