|
(There was no response.)
Delegate Bothe, the Chair would like tc
ask just a few questions for clarification.
Would I understand from your earlier
answers that as used here, "employees" is
used in the ordinary sense, and therefore
would not include members of the militia
as a military organization?
DELEGATE BOTHE: That is correct
THE CHAIRMAN: And did I under-
stand you in response to Delegate Wa-
gandt's questions to be suggesting that for
somewhat the same reasons it might not
include members of police departments as
members of a semi-military organization,
but that this would be for the courts to
decide?
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think that is a
fair statement. It would be for the courts
to decide.
THE CHAIRMAN: With respect to your
answer as to the General Assembly having
the power to implement, would the General
Assembly have the power to exclude any
particular classes of employees, as for in-
stance, by occupation, such as household
workers, or farmers, or employers of less
than a certain number, for example, one or
two employees?
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think the legis-
lature could exclude any class it chose
from the legislation. It could not exclude
them from the effect of the constitution,
but it could pass legislation dealing with
only particular kinds of employees that
would not conflict with the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: That is what I
wanted to clarify. You are saying the leg-
islature could provide regulations with re-
spect to collective bargaining, but it could
not deprive any particular class of em-
ployees of the right to collective bargain?
DELEGATE BOTHE: That is right.
THE CHAIRMAN: One further
question.
Would the power of the legislature under
this section extend to something like, for
instance, provision for compulsory arbitra-
tion in the case of very large employers
or anything of that sort?
DELEGATE BOTHE: This is not the
opinion of a labor lawyer. I think the Gen-
eral Assembly would be able to enact
compulsory arbitration laws without con-
flicting with this provision, providing that
the arbitration were a part of the collective
|
bargaining process and not in conflict
with it.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Beatrice
Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: I rise, Mr.
Chairman, because in the clarification I am
afraid we have done great offense to the
police employees, of for instance, Baltimore
City, who now enjoy a relationship in
terms of their employment.
I think the clarification was in terms of
prohibiting, or having the General Assem-
bly have the right to exempt them from
certain legislation, but not to prohibit them
from the right to organize and bargain
collectively; is that correct?
THE CHAIRMAN: As I understood the
minority spokesman, she was saying that
as to whether or not the police departments
of Baltimore City or anywhere else would
be included within this section, she would
not give a categorical answer and it would
depend upon whether they were regarded
as a semi-military organization like the
militia, and hence exempt, or not so re-
garded.
Is that a correct statement, Delegate
Bothe?
DELEGATE BOTHE: That is a correct
statement. Delegate Miller has indicated,
and I have some personal knowledge of
this, that the police have been accorded the
rights so that apparently — I do not know
that it has ever been construed by the
courts — in the judgment of the State at
this time policemen should not be exempted
on that ground.
I would assume that we are not reversing
any precedents by putting this provision
in the constitution.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: Mr. Chair-
man, I think we need to make it rather
clear that all employees, with the possible
exception of the military, would be in-
cluded in the right, but that certain classes
of employees could certainly be restricted
or exempted by the General Assembly in
terms of whatever implementing legislation
the General Assembly wants to pass.
THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know
whether that is a question or a statement,
Delegate Miller.
DELEGATE B. MILLER: A statement.
THE CHAIRMAN: Delegate Bothe.
DELEGATE BOTHE: I think it some-
|
