Judges: JIM MATTOX, Attorney General of Texas
Filed Date: 6/29/1987
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/6/2016
Honorable Lloyd Criss Chairman Committee on Labor Employment Relations Texas House of Representatives P.O. Box 2910 Austin, Texas 78769
Re: Validity of section 5 of article 5154a, V.T.C.S., which requires labor union organizers to register with the secretary of state
Dear Representative Criss:
You inquire about the validity of section 5 of article 5154a, V.T.C.S., which requires labor union organizers soliciting union members in Texas to carry an organizer's card issued by the secretary of state. You note that in 1945 the United States Supreme Court held this provision to be unconstitutional as applied to a national labor leader who addressed a large group meeting in Texas. Thomas v. Collins,
Article 5154a, V.T.C.S., regulates labor unions. A purpose of the statute is to protect workers, V.T.C.S. art. 5154a, § 1.
Section 5 of article 5154a, V.T.C.S., provides as follows:
Sec. 5. All labor union organizers operating in the State of Texas shall be required to file with the Secretary of State, before soliciting any members for his organization, a written request by United States mail, or shall apply in person for an organizer's card, stating (a) his name in full; (b) his labor union affiliations, if any; (c) describing his credentials and attaching thereto a copy thereof, which application shall be signed by him. Upon such applications being filed, the Secretary of State shall issue to the applicant a card on which shall appear the following: (1) the applicant's name; (2) his union affiliation; (3) a space for his personal signature; (4) a designation, ``labor organizer'; and, (5) the signature of the Secretary of State, dated and attested by his seal of office. Such organizer shall at all times, when soliciting members, carry such card, and shall exhibit the same when requested to do so by a person being so solicited for membership. (Emphasis added).
"Labor Organizer" is defined as
any person who for a pecuniary or financial consideration solicits memberships in a labor union or members for a labor union. . . .
V.T.C.S. art. 5154a, § 2(c). A labor organizer who violates section 5 or any other provision of article 5154a, V.T.C.S., is "deemed guilty of a misdemeanor" and upon conviction is subject to a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars, confinement in the county jail not to exceed 60 days, or both a fine and imprisonment. V.T.C.S. art. 5154a, § 11. We understand that the secretary of state's duty to issue this card is purely ministerial. See
Thomas v. Collins, supra, involved the application of section 5, article 5154a, V.T.C.S., to a labor leader who gave a speech advocating unionization. The Texas Supreme Court found the provision constitutional in Ex parte Thomas,
[w]e think a requirement that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements of the
First Amendment.
Since a majority of the Court do not agree that section 5 or its present application conflicts with the National Labor Relations Act, our decision rests exclusively upon the grounds we have stated for finding that the statute as applied contravenes the Constitution.
In a recent case, the United States Supreme Court has stated its understanding of the
Thomas v. Collins (citations omitted) held that the
First Amendment barred enforcement of a state statute requiring a permit before soliciting membership in any labor organization. Solicitation and speech were deemed to be so intertwined that a prior permit could not be required. The Court also recognized that ``espousal of the cause of labor is entitled to no higher constitutional protection than the espousal of any other lawful cause.' (Citations omitted). The Court rejected the notion thatFirst Amendment claims could be dismissed merely by urging ``that an organization for which the rights of free speech and free assembly are claimed is one ``engaged in business activities' or that the individual who leads it in exercising these rights receives compensation for doing so.' (Citations omitted). Concededly, the ``collection of funds' might be subject to reasonable regulation, but the Court ruled that such regulation ``must be done, and the restriction applied, in such a manner as not to intrude upon the rights of free speech and free assembly.' (Citations omitted).
Thomas v. Collins, as rendered by the Supreme Court in 1945 and as cited in 1980, leaves open the question of whether article 5, section 5154a, V.T.C.S., is facially constitutional. Two Texas decisions have addressed the constitutionality of this provision since the Supreme Court held it unconstitutional as applied in Thomas. In American Federation of Labor v. Mann,
In 1954, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals upheld a conviction for violation of section 5 of article 5154a. Coutlakis v. State,
As here used, it means ``to entice, to request, to incite' and surely it does not contain the further proposition that it should be a successful solicitation evidenced by the passage of money from one person to another. (Emphasis added).
The Supreme Court has not held section 5 of article 5154a, V.T.C.S., facially unconstitutional. Moreover, two Texas cases since Thomas v. Collins have found the statute constitutional. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has suggested an interpretation of the provision that would render it constitutional. If the Texas Supreme Court were faced directly with this question, it would have an opportunity to give a construction to this statute which would render it constitutional. Therefore, we cannot advise you that this provision violates the
We will next consider whether section 5 of article 5154a, V.T.C.S., conflicts with the NLRA. As already pointed out, the opinion in Thomas v. Collins stated that a majority did not agree that there was such a conflict. The defendant in Coutlakis v. State,
Garner dealt with federal preemption of a grievance arising out of peaceful picketing. The NLRA gave the National Labor Regulations Board jurisdiction so that the state court could not adjudge the controversy. Hill v. State of Florida determined that the Florida licensing statute was inconsistent with section 157 of chapter 7 of the NLRA which provides as follows:
Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of . . . mutual aid or protection. . . .
It is the sanction here imposed, and not the duty to report, which brings about a situation inconsistent with the federally protected process of collective bargaining.
The Supreme Court has recently overruled the Hill ruling that the NLRA preempts state laws establishing qualifications for union officials. In Brown v. Hotel Restaurant Employees and Bartenders Int'l Union Local 54,
Except as explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall reduce or limit the responsibilities of any labor organization or any officer, agent, shop steward, or other representative of a labor organization, or of any trust in which a labor organization is interested, under any other Federal law or under the laws of any State, and, except as explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in this chapter shall take away any right or bar any remedy to which members of a labor organization are entitled under such other Federal law or law of any State. (Emphasis added).
This office, in carrying out its duty to provide legal advice, must rely on the decisions of the courts. See Travis County v. Matthews,
Very truly yours,
Jim Mattox Attorney General of TexasMary Keller Executive Assistant Attorney General
Judge Zollie Steakley Special Assistant Attorney General
Rick Gilpin Chairman Opinion Committee
Prepared by Susan L. Garrison Assistant Attorney General