 |
 |
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
164 (b) of the LMRA. After determining that limited aspects of the right-to-work amendment "conflict with and are preempted by the LMRA," the district court turned its attention to the severability issue, but did not declare any right-to-work provision void as unconstitutional.
The judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma pronounced that Article 23 § 1A subsections (B) (5) and (C) were "preempted by federal law as being outside the grant of authority conferred by Section 164 (b) of the LMRA." It does not follow from this conclusion that the provisions are void based on the determination that statutory provisions are preempted for exceeding the scope of federally granted authority. Rather, the district-court determination operates to condition or restrict the application of the provision instead of rendering it void.
The district court noted restrictions in the application of the right-to-work amendment that prevent the statute from conflicting with or exceeding the scope of authority granted by federal law. Applying the federal-law preemptions outlined by the district court, the right-to-work amendment is limited in its application by the following conditions (1) the amendment applies only to employees encompassed by the LMBR, (2) hiring halls that discriminate between members and non-members are prohibited, and (3) employee authorization is required before union dues may be deducted, the authorization to remain irrevocable for one year.
The district court's conclusion that Oklahoma's right-to-work amendment applies only to employment relationships falling within the scope of § 164 (b) of the LMRA articulates the restricted scope of the amendment. As the district court states, "application of the State of Oklahoma's prohibition against union security devices is necessarily limited to those employees falling under the purview of the LMRA." The practical effect of the district court's declarations is to restrict the full range of right-to-work amendment provisions to those private labor-management relationships which do not substantially affect interstate commerce.
When addressing restrictions in subsections (B) (5) and (C) of the right-to-work amendment, the district court relied on federal law. The drafters of the right-to-work amendment sought primarily to regulate (1) those labor-management relations that lie within the narrow window of state regulation authorized by § 164 (b) of the LMRA, and (2) labor-management relations completely outside the scope of federal authority. Labor relationships falling within the limited scope of state regulation allowed by § 164 (b) stand limited by applicable federal law. That law dictates that these labor relationships permit non-discriminatory union hiring halls and an annual obligation once an employee authorizes a payroll deduction for union dues. Labor relationships within the exclusive authority of state governance are utterly unaffected by federal regulations. This leaves Oklahoma's amendment fully applicable in those contexts.
Despite imposing federal-law restrictions on the right-to work-amendment, the district court refused to adopt a statutory construction that would defeat the constitutionality of Oklahoma's amendment. Specifically, the district court applied the rules of statutory construction supporting "a construction of the state law which will uphold its validity as opposed to one which will render it void by reason of federal preemption." In adopting rules of statutory construction that uphold the overall validity of the right-to-work amendment, the district court acknowledged (1) "Oklahoma's prohibition against union security devices is necessarily lim
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.
|
|