|
DELEGATE BOTHE: I am looking at
the National Labor Relations Act to find
the definition of "employees". I doubt very
much it would cover it. If you ask me for
a particular situation and I am familiar
with it, I could probably give you a reason-
ably authoritative answer.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: My question is,
Delegate Bothe, in other words, you are
saying that the federal law is applicable
here to this word "employees" and the
state law. Could this be so the courts will
so construe that?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I do not know,
Delegate Vecera. I think they would be
free to construe it otherwise.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Vecera.
DELEGATE VECERA: In other words,
we want to see the widest latitude given to
this word "employees" in order that it be
effective and not go to Delegate Darby's
proposal, where there would be exemptions.
I would hope that word would have the
widest latitude in order to cover people
both in public and private agencies, as well.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think that
would have to await the construction the
courts would place on the word.
THE CHAIRMAN: Are there any fur-
ther questions?
Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Delegate
Bothe, to be abundantly clear in this re-
spect, is it not true that for those areas
now covered by federal law in interstate
commerce, that any interpretations given by
our court in this respect would be pre-
empted by the federal act as it now applies?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: They are now.
Our state courts do not have authority to
deal with employer-employee relationships
which are covered by the National Labor
Relations Act, and this would not change
that.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Wheatley.
DELEGATE WHEATLEY: Thank you.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Chabot.
DELEGATE CHABOT: Delegate Bothe,
I understood your replies to Delegates
|
Child and Bennett to indicate that most
likely the legislature would have, even in
the absence of this provision, authority to
effectuate the protections that you seek to
provide by this provision.
Is this not true also of substantially all
the other matters that we have already
approved in the Bill of Rights?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think all of
them. The only places the legislature can-
not legislate is where it is forbidden by the
constitution, and those areas where we
state affirmative right, we are doing no
more than placing the stamp of funda-
mental directive on it. The legislature is
still free to act. This is certainly true of
consumer protection and conservation, but
in this instance you are granting a jus-
ticiable right. You are not simply stating
a policy in the hope that the legislature
will do something.
If the legislature acts or if it does not
you have accorded someone the ability to
effectuate a right.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Lloyd
Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Delegate
Bothe, when you first started to make your
speech you said something about the vol-
unteer servitude.
I would like to ask this question. Many
times when people are trying to organize
in order to obtain higher wages, they are
intimidated, and many times fired by their
employers. Would this particular right, if
it were included in the constitution, pro-
tect many employees from being intimi-
dated and possibly fired because they
sought to engage in collective bargaining?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: Certainly it
would, because they would have a right to
protect themselves against this kind of
coercion and intimidation.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Taylor.
DELEGATE L. TAYLOR: Also how
many employees in the State of Maryland
are not covered by the Wagner Labor Act?
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: The statistics
which I have, and they are included in
the minority report, I believe, indicate —
this is on page 3 of the report — that there
are 100,000 agricultural workers, 250,000
|
