 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Local 514 Transport Workers Union of America v. Keating12/16/2003
ain of the right to work law's terms are preempted by federal law, not that they are unconstitutional. Indeed, the Tenth Circuit carefully spelled out in its certified question No. 1 that certain of the right to work law's provisions were unenforceable because of their "preemption . . . as opposed to the 'invalidation' of those provisions." Certified Question No. 1.
Just as whether some of the right to work amendment's provisions were preempted by federal law was a question of federal law, whether the finding of the federal court's requires us to engage in severability analysis is a question of state law. We hold that severability analysis is not necessary here for the reason that the right to work law contemplated that some of its provisions might be preempted by federal law and because plaintiffs failed to overcome the presumption that the right to work law is valid and enforceable. Thus, we decline to address plaintiffs' various legal arguments in support of their claim that the rulings of the federal courts in this matter establish that the voters were somehow mislead.
CONCLUSION
Although the question whether state law is preempted is a matter of federal law, the severability question is a matter of state law. Under Oklahoma law, constitutional provisions are entitled to the same presumption of validity as are statutes. We hold that rulings by federal courts applying federal law to the effect that certain provisions of the right to work law are subject to preemption (but not "invalidation") of some of its terms as to some but not all workers in some but not all situations fails to overcome the presumption of validity to which the right to work law is entitled under Oklahoma law. Severability analysis is therefore not called for here. Further, to hold the right to work amendment unconstitutional under the circumstances presented here would be to thwart the clearly expressed will of the people.
CERTIFIED QUESTIONS ANSWERED
WATT, C.J., OPALA, V.C.J., HODGES, HARGRAVE, KAUGER, WINCHESTER, JJ. -concur.
LAVENDER, SUMMERS, BOUDREAU, JJ. - concur in result.
OPALA, V.C.J., concurring.
The court answers today that Oklahoma's right-to-work amendment need not be subjected to severability analysis. I write separately to (1) explain the purpose and application of severability analysis and (2) emphasize that each provision of Oklahoma's right-to-work amendment remains valid, operating harmoniously with applicable federal law to form the expansive body of legal norms that govern labor-management relations within the State of Oklahoma.
Federal labor law, where applicable, and the Oklahoma right-to-work amendment must operate in concert. Labor-management relations encompass three distinct groups for employment classification: (1) employment relationships regulated entirely by federal law, (2) employment contracts that fall within the narrow exception reserved for state governance by the Labor Management Relations Act (hereinafter "LMRA"), and (3) employment relationships outside the impact of federal law which are regulated exclusively by state law. We must assume as a given that Oklahoma's constitutional amendment evinces not only this state's regulatory policy vis-a-vis the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. ยง 164 (b), where applicable, but also voices the state's policy for the labor market utterly unaffected by federal law. Drafters of the Oklahoma right-to-work amendment doubtless sought to regulate the window opened by the LMRA as well as the federally unregulated field of labor-management relations within this state. A contrary assumption would be unsupported by the express language of the amendment.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Oklahoma Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|