 |
 |
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
I. WE ASSUME THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT CORRECTLY LIMITED APPLICATION OF OKLAHOMA'S RIGHT-TO-WORK AMENDMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXTANT FEDERAL LAW
This court's authority when responding to a certified question is limited to answering state-law questions when it is satisfied there "is no controlling decision of the Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals, constitutional provision, or statute of this state." Because severability is a matter of state law, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit deferred on the issue to this court's answer about whether, on review of the U.S. Districts Court's decision now on appeal, severability analysis with regard to Oklahoma's right-to-work amendment may be entirely dispensed with as unnecessary.
The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution arms Congress with the power to preempt state law. Congress has regulated labor-management relations, allowing states to intrude solely upon a narrowly defined portion. Whether Oklahoma's amendment fits within the narrow exception granted by Congress or reaches beyond and is hence preempted by federal law is exclusively a federal-law issue. This court doesn't give a federal court advice on issues of federal law. Under the certified question statute, 20 O.S.2001 § 1602, we may give a federal court our answer solely on the issues of state law. For our answer today we must assume the preemptive impact to be that which stands decreed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
II. THE PURPOSE OF SEVERABILITY ANALYSIS
Severability analysis is a necessary undertaking when some, but not all, provisions of an enactment are deemed unconstitutional and hence must be voided. Its purpose is to determine whether non-offending statutory provisions may survive after the rejected invalid clauses are separated from the whole. The severability of a state constitutional or statutory enactment, which is a question of state law, is not contingent on the presence of an express severability clause within the particular enactment. Considerations relevant to severability analysis are outlined in the provisions of 75 O.S.2001 §11a.
Survival of remaining statutory provisions is appropriate when the valid and voided (as unconstitutional) provisions are not so "inseparably connected with and so dependent upon" each other that the surviving provisions would not have otherwise been enacted. Consideration must be given to whether the surviving provisions rely on the severed portion for meaning or enforcement. The terms of 75 O.S.2001 § 11a set forth a clear prerequisite for the employment of severability analysis. This may occur when a statutory provision or application of the statute is declared unconstitutional and is hence voided. If no provision is invalidated as unconstitutional, severability analysis is unnecessary and inappropriate.
III. BECAUSE ALL PROVISIONS OF THE RIGHT-TO-WORK AMENDMENT REMAIN VALID, SEVERABILITY ANALYSIS IS RENDERED UNNECESSARY
As the court recognizes in its pronouncement and I discuss below, the judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma restricts the application of Oklahoma's right-to-work amendment without rendering any of its provisions void as unconstitutional. The district court determined (1) employees subject to regulation under the RLA, the CSRA, the PRA and federal enclave jurisdiction are outside the scope of Oklahoma's right-to-work amendment, (2) Article 23 § 1A subsection (B) (5), Okl.Const., exceeds the scope of authority granted the states by § 164 (b) of the LMRA, and (3) Article 23 § 1A subsection (C) is outside the scope of authority granted by §
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.
|
|