About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


32 B.C. L. Rev. 95 (1990-1991)
The Interplay of Civil Service Law and Collective Bargaining Law in Public Sector Employee Discipline Cases

handle is hein.journals/bclr32 and id is 105 raw text is: THE INTERPLAY OF CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAW IN PUBLIC SECTOR EMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE CASESt ANN C. HODGES* INTRODUCTION .................................................. 96 I. BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF CIVIL SERVICE L AW .............................................................. 101 II. BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT OF COLLECTIVE BAR- GAINING IN PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT ............................ 103 III. THE POTENTIAL CONFLICT BETWEEN CIVIL SERVICE LAW AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING LAW ......................... 106 IV. STATE RESOLUTIONS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE-COLLECTIVE BARGAINING CONFLICT IN DISCIPLINE CASES .............. 108 A. The Silent Statutes ........................................... 110 B. Specific Statutory Provisions Regarding Employee D iscipline ..................................................... 117 1. State Statutes that Expressly Address the Issue of Contract Provisions Regarding Employee D iscipline ................................................. 117 2. Strengths and Weaknesses of Express Statutory Provisions Regarding Employee Discipline ........ 121 C. Statutory Provisions Regarding the Relationship of Col- lective Bargaining to Other Laws .......... 124 1. State Statutes with Language Directed to the Re- lationship of Collective Bargaining and Other Law s ...................................................... 124 t Copyright © 1990 Ann C. Hodges. * Assistant Professor of Law, University of Richmond; B.A., 1973, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill; M.A., 1974, University of Illinois; J.D., 1981, Northwestern Univer- sity. The author thanks Professors Charles B. Craver, Stephen B. Goldberg, and Michael J. Herbert and the participants of the University of Richmond Law Faculty Colloquium for their comments on an earlier draft of this article. The author also acknowledges the encour- agement and suggestions of R. Theodore Clark, Jr., partner at Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in Chicago, the use of the Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson library for research materials, and the valuable research assistance of Rita R. Cammarano, J.D., 1989, and John M. Craig, Class of 1991, University of Richmond Law School. Generous financial assistance that supported the research and writing of this article was provided by the Uni- versity of Richmond, the University of Richmond Faculty Research Committee, and the Hunton & Williams Summer Research Fund.