# City of Tulsa v. Public Employees Relations Board

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · November 2, 1990 · 845 P.2d 872

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560509

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF TULSA, Oklahoma, a Municipal Corporation, Appellant, Counter-Appellee, v. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RELATIONS BOARD, State of Oklahoma, Appellee, Counter-Appellee, and Fraternal Order of Police, Tulsa Lodge 93 and the International Association of Fire Fighters, Tulsa Local 176, AFL-CIO, Appellee, Counter-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 2, 1990
- **Citations:** 845 P.2d 872
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hodges
- **Judges:** Summers, Hargrave, Opala, Lavender, Doolin, Wilson, Hodges, Simms, Kauger
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560509

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating charter provisions "will not prevail over those conflicting statutory provisions which concern a statewide public interest"

## Opinion text

HODGES, Justice,
dissenting.
Today’s majority opinion purports to not decide the constitutionality of the “evergreen clause” found in title 11, section 51-105. But the decision holds that the judicial equivalent of the evergreen clause, the dynamic status quo doctrine, violates article 10, section 26, of the Oklahoma Constitution and, therefore, may not be applied to the facts of this case. Thus, by implication, the evergreen clause has been struck down. The evergreen clause does not violate article 10, section 26, and the statutory duty to bargain in good faith extended the terms of the expired contract during impasse resolution.
Neither the evergreen clause nor. its judicial equivalent trigger article 10, section 26. “The restrictive effect of this constitutional provision is inoperable where the contractual obligation is imposed upon a political subdivision by legislative enactment.” Board of County Comm’rs v. Oklahoma Pub. Employees Retirement Sys., 405 P.2d 68, 72 (Okla.1965) (discussing City of Claremore v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 197 Okl. 223 , 169 P.2d 299 (1946); Wilson v. City of Hollis, 193 Okl. 241 , 142 P.2d 633 (1943)). Here, the obligation is imposed by the statutory requirement that the parties bargain in good faith during impasse resolution.
The city voluntarily entered the collective bargaining agreement, but the extension of the contract terms arose by operation of law from the Fire and Police Arbitration Act. “Section 26, article 10 of the State Constitution, does not apply to those liabilities which are not voluntarily incurred but *880 are imposed upon the municipality by the sovereign power as expressed in the Constitution and the valid acts of the Legislature.” Board of County Comm’rs v. Mullins, 202 Okl. 628, 628 , 217 P.2d 835, 837 (1950) (Syllabus by the Court no. 4). Because the extension of the terms of the contract is part of the city’s duty to bargain in good faith, article 10, section 26 is inapplicable.
Although the evergreen clause was enacted after the parties entered into the collective bargaining agreement, the result does not change. By enacting the evergreen clause, the Legislature simply made explicit what was always implied in the statutory duty to negotiate in good faith.
I am authorized to state that Justice SIMMS concurs in the views expressed herein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9560509. Public record. Not legal advice.