Moore, Enid among cities affected by state Supreme Court's reversal

By James S. Tyree

CNHI News Service

OKLAHOMA CITY -- It's back to the drawing board for Enid.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court Tuesday made a rare self-reversal and ruled 5-4 that non-uniformed public employees in cities of 35,000 residents or more may form a union. The case is city of Enid v. Public Employees Relations Board and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Fire and police employees won the right to unionize in 1971. Members of the Oklahoma Municipal League, an association of city officials, have said expanding union representation and negotiations to other workers could raise municipal labor costs up to 25 percent.

"It certainly would be (more expensive)," Enid City Manager Jerry Erwin said. "I don't have the costs in front of me, but I would imagine it would be."

Oklahoma has 11 cities with 35,000 or more people: Bartlesville, Edmond, Enid, Lawton, Midwest City, Moore, Muskogee, Norman, Oklahoma City, Stillwater and Tulsa. Non-uniformed public workers in Muskogee, Norman, Oklahoma City and Tulsa had union representation prior to the 2004 law.

Enid Mayor Ernie Currier said the city council will meet with city attorneys Tuesday night after its regular meeting to learn its options and decide what further action to take, if any.

"If it's state law, we're going to obey the state laws," Currier said. "I don't think it's the end of the world or anything like that, and we have wonderful people working for the city of Enid."

Similarly, Moore City Manager Steve Eddy said, "although we don't agree with the decision, the Supreme Court has spoken and we are willing to deal with it."

Moore was among several cities that filed suit against the Oklahoma Municipal Employees Collective Bargaining Act shortly after it took effect Nov. 1, 2004. Enid was the first to file, and Oklahoma County District Judge Daniel Owens sided with the city in January, 2005, saying the population standard is "arbitrary."

The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the district court ruling July 5, 2005, in a 5-3 vote. Justice Yvonne Kauger agreed in part and dissented in part.

Attorneys James Moore and Sue Wycoff, representing the defendant Public Employees Relations Board, asked the court to reconsider the case. It did with what some consider surprising results.

Vice Chief Justice James Winchester changed his mind and sided with the union, while Kauger hopped off the fence and voted on the union's side. Winchester was out of town Wednesday and unavailable for comment.

Wycoff said she wasn't shocked by the Supreme Court reversal, even though they are rare.

"What it does is erase the first opinion as though it doesn't exist," she said. "We filed our petition for re-hearing and set out to show a long history ... of special laws we felt they may not have fully considered the first time. We were joined by association of county commissioners and they pointed out there are lots and lots of laws based on population ... and the court may not have taken that into account the first time."

Justices Robert Lavender, Rudolph Hargrave, Kauger and James Edmondson joined Winchester in saying there is precedent in population thresholds. The majority opinion, which had no listed author, also said larger cities are more likely to have legal staff and personnel departments to handle union contract negotiations, unlike small towns with fewer funds and resources.

Blaine Rummel, an AFSCME spokesman, last year said the population limit was put in place for that reason: to give workers in larger cities a voice with a bigger government while acknowledging the limited funds and increased interaction between city officials and labor in smaller towns.

"We determine that the Act's population classification is not arbitrary or capricious," the Supreme Court's majority opinion states. "... We further determine that the Act grants the same privileges to all municipalities of the same class. It manifests uniform application to all class members."

But in dissension, Justice Marian Opala wrote, "If municipal workers' bargaining rights are a matter of state interest, any regulation of this arena ought to be extended to all municipalities. Chief Justice Joseph Watt and Justices Tom Colbert and Steven Taylor also dissented.

Taylor wrote there "are no distinct differences between public works employees in some cities" and those in other cities.

Sen. Glenn Coffee, R-Oklahoma City, co-authored a bill last year that would have repealed the 2004 law. After learning of Tuesday's court decision, the senator said another bill may come about to overturn it. He is unsure when or if it would happen, though, because this year's bills already have been filed.

"We need to have the discussion," Coffee said. "The original law is bad policy and I would favor repealing it. ... It's one more cost and hurdle for medium-sized cities to overcome to remain prosperous."

Bob Cameron disagrees to the point of being "elated" when hearing of the ruling. The building inspector for the city of Moore said unionizing public employees is about job security and getting a few cities "that are really, really tight" to compensate their workers like surrounding communities.

City workers in Bartlesville, Enid, Lawton and Moore and at the Oklahoma City Zoo voted to form a union before lawsuits put the effort on hold.

Both Cameron and Eddy expect Moore city employees -- up to 100 are affected by the law -- soon will restart efforts to start a union.

"Hopefully," Cameron said, "we can work out a reasonable contract for both parties."

James S. Tyree is CNHI News Service Oklahoma reporter.