Opinion

City of Fort Smith v. Arkansas State Council No. 38

  • 245 Ark. 409
  • 433 S.W.2d 153
  • 69 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2619
  • 1968 Ark. LEXIS 1216
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Oct 21, 1968
Status
Published
Author
Byrd
On the bench
George Rose Smith
Cited by
17 cases

under Amendment 34 to the Arkansas Constitution, municipal employees have the right to belong to labor unions, but they do not have the right to strike against the government

How later courts described this case

  • under Amendment 34 to the Arkansas Constitution, municipal employees have the right to belong to labor unions, but they do not have the right to strike against the government

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Conley Byrd, Justiee. In concurring I place much more emphasis on the fact that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-201 (Repl. 1960), makes collective bargaining the public policy of this state and that the statute is also applicable to municipalities. It is true that Acts 1947, No. 101, of which § 81-201 is the first section, provides no sanction for an employer who refuses to recognize a union and does not attempt to change public policy prohibiting strikes against a municipality or other government agency. However, I think the majority opinion is not exactly correct when it says the city has no duty to bargain collectively with its employees about wages, hours and working conditions. My understanding of the act is that the employees have no recourse to the courts for the enforcement of their right of collective bargaining where the city refuses their request.

This may be nothing more than the difference between accentuating the positive instead of the negative, but I certainly think that in view of the state’s public policy, an employee of the city not only has the right to belong to a union, but has the correlative right to bargain over wages, hours and working conditions with the city through. his union representative.

The lack of recourse to the courts or to the use of a strike may water down the effectiveness of the union’s ability to represent him, but it does not prevent recourse to education of the public through publicity. It must be remembered that this phase of a union’s activities has its effect upon community thinking. It is common knowledge that many people who work with their hands are incapable of expressing their grievances even after they have found the proper forum. Just as business finds it necessary to employ advertising agencies to sell its products or its message to the public, I think a man through his union dues should be entitled to the services of a union representative to settle or publish his grievances concerning the things most important to him, i.e., grievances concerning wages, hours and working conditions.

Concurring.

Harris, C.J. and Jones, J., join in this concurrence.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.