|
the Committee on Personal Rights and the
Preamble.
It is a very interesting article but I do
not feel that its position there does any-
thing to specifically guarantee the right.
It is merely a catch-all situation. In case
the courts decide they have a right, they
might rely on that provision to vindicate it.
I think the Supreme Court — and the
federal Constitution contains a similar pro-
vision — has only consulted it twice in
history, so nobody except Delegate Hard-
wicke, perhaps, knows what it means.
DELEGATE DARBY: Delegate Bothe,
I think this is more or less the same ques-
tion that Delegate Neilson just asked but
if this amendment passed it would mean
the legislature could not exempt any par-
ticular group. Is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: When you say
exempt, —
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Darby.
DELEGATE DARBY: In other words,
if you are saying in your memorandum
that there are 135,000 employees of the
state, I assume that you are including even
the assistant or deputy attorneys general,
state's attorneys, and deputy or assistant
state's attorneys. I assume that they would
also be included and the legislature could
not exempt any group; is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: It depends on
what you consider to be employees. There
is a body of law construing the meaning of
that. I do not think assistant attorneys
general or other policy-making employees
of the State or of private employers would
be considered employees.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Darby.
DELEGATE DARBY: You would con-
sider, let us say, an assistant attorney gen-
eral an employee of the State. He would
not be a policy-maker, would he?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think my an-
swer would have to be qualified in the same
way as an earlier one was.
If the members of the attorney general's
staff decided they wanted to organize and
bargain collectively and their boss uses
constitutional powers to hire and fire them,
it would be a matter for the court to de-
cide. I do not see the situation arising.
|
TPIE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Darby.
DELEGATE DARBY: This wording is
certainly all-inclusive. It would include
probably all employees of the State and
employees of anybody, is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: It would insofar
as the construction of the word employees
included anybody. We have other places in
the constitution. We talk about the militia
in terms of war and peace.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Darby.
DELEGATE DARBY: Would This pos-
sibly include the militia. It could be a group
of anywhere —
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think you
gave her an opportunity to answer your
other question. I do not know whether you
heard it, Delegate Bothe. He said this
would possibly include the militia; would it?
DELEGATE BOTHE: Apparently the
Chairman likes that question.
THE CHAIRMAN: I just want it
answered.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I do not have a
case at hand, Mr. Chairman, but I do not
think that the militia are employees. I
point to the model state constitution pro-
posal which separates or talks about a
right to organize, but talks about the
militia separately, so obviously the consti-
tutional draftsmen of the National Mu-
nicipal League do not think they can cover
militia by speaking of employees.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Darby.
DELEGATE DARBY: Are you exclud-
ing militia, then?
DELEGATE BOTHE: Of course. Militia
are not employees.
DELEGATE DARBY: All right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any other
questions?
Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: Delegate Bothe,
the word "employees" goes to the heart of
some of the matter that was discussed by
Delegate Darby previously. You mentioned
there was a body of law concerning the
word "employees". Could you please just
define that a little more clearly for us and
perhaps give us an indication of what
employees are?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
|
