|
directed to you in the sense of asking
whether the State as an employer or a
political subdivision or municipality as an
employer and not as a maker of laws
would have any right to prescribe regula-
tions with respect to its employees. Is that
your question, Delegate Weidemeyer?
DELEGATE WEIDEMEYER: It was
and I had this in mind. The word "em-
ployees" was so all-inclusive without any
further qualification or specification that it
would include employees of the State and,
therefore, the legislature at some turn of
events might choose to say that it does not
want to have our employees organized or
bargain collectively with it.
This wording in here to my way of
thinking would prohibit that and I asked
Delegate Bothe if she did not agree.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Oh, if you are
saying that this would prohibit the General
Assembly or any employer from saying
that he will not allow his employees to or-
ganize and that he will not bargain collec-
tively with him, of course it would.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions?
Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Delegate Bothe,
my question goes, I guess, right to your
last answer.
Do I understand that this would create
some sort of implied constitutional obliga-
tion on the employer to listen?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I would say so.
I do not know how far your question is
meant to extend.
DELEGATE DUKES: Let me take a
specific illustration you gave a few mo-
ments ago.
You mentioned employees who actually
organized and went on strike and ultimately
had to come crawling back because the em-
ployer would not listen. How would this
change that situation?
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think the em-
ployer would have to listen, which is per-
haps the short word for collective bar-
gaining.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Dukes.
DELEGATE DUKES: Well, then, I
would appreciate it if you would simplify
it; does that mean they could invite them
in and sit five minutes and listen?
|
What does this do to the employer?
DELEGATE BOTHE: Perhaps I should
read the definition of employer in the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act so it is clear to
everybody what we mean when we propose
that the employer should bargain collec-
tively.
I am quoting from Section 8(d) of the
National Labor Relations Act which re-
quires employers in interstate commerce
to do just this. It says
"to bargain collectively is a perform-
ance of the mutual obligation of the em-
ployer and the representative of the em-
ployees to meet at reasonable times and
confer in good faith with respect to
wages, hours and other terms of condi-
tion of employment or in the negotiation
of agreement or any question arising
thereunder, but such obligations do not
compel either party to agree to a pro-
posal or require .the making of a con-
cession."
DELEGATE DUKES: That goes di-
rectly to the heart of my problem. Obvi-
ously around the National Labor Relations
Act, there is a whole body of decisions and
of course the statute which places a num-
ber of rights and obligations both on the
employer and employee. Do I understand
by this amendment we would create in
Maryland a body of law in effect which
incorporated all these various definitions
and so forth, including all the terms used
in this particular amendment?
DELEGATE BOTHE: No, Delegate
Dukes. The question of exactly what would
occur if without implementing legislation,
this provision were placed in the Declara-
tion of Rights, is not an easy one to answer.
I have found one court case construing
the meaning of this bare bones provision, a
case coming out of Missouri where, as I
said previously, originally the constitution
merely gave the right which has since been
implemented by legislation. I think the
record ought -to indicate what that court
in a case decided in 1957 found were the
obligations arising out of a right to or-
ganize and bargain collectively.
In that case, which is called Quinn v.
Buchanan 298 S. W. 2nd, the employees
under a provision very similar to that
which we have heard proposed, in fact I
think it is the exact same words, petitioned
the court for preventive and mandatory
injunctive relief agains an employer who
apparently discharged a number of em-
ployees for their organizing activities and
|
