Tulsa, Okla. (June 27, 2003)<\/b> \u2013 In a ruling that severely jeopardizes Oklahoma\u2019s recently enacted Right to Work amendment, Judge David Patterson of the Oklahoma State District Court for Tulsa County ruled that the constitutional amendment enacted by the voters is somehow unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
Judge Patterson issued the order in Eastern Oklahoma Building and Construction Trades Council v. Ralph Pitts, a recently discovered \u201ccollusive lawsuit\u201d filed quietly in May with the apparent intention by both parties (union and employer) of voiding the state\u2019s Right to Work law without serious arguments made by a party that sincerely supports the law.<\/p>\n
Learning of the stealth suit, National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys \u2013 representing Stephen Weese, a Tulsa-area employee \u2013 filed a motion two weeks ago to intervene in the suit to ensure that the law was vigorously defended. However, rather than act on that pending motion, the court instead rushed to grant summary judgment for the union and declare that the Right to Work amendment \u2013 which protects employees from being fired for refusal to pay union dues \u2013 is unconstitutional.<\/p>\n
Legal documents show that the employer defendant, electrical contractor Ralph Pitts, is represented by an attorney who has previously represented International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 584, a member of the plaintiff trades council and the \u201creal party in interest\u201d in this lawsuit. This attorney filed only a perfunctory \u201copposition\u201d to the union\u2019s motion for summary judgment.<\/p>\n
Earlier this week, the Foundation filed a formal request under Oklahoma\u2019s Open Records Act with Attorney General Drew Edmondson for all internal documents that reflect discussion as to why the attorney general refused to intervene to defend state law and the will of Oklahoma voters. Aside from telling the media that the attorney general does not \u201cusually\u201d get involved in district court cases challenging the constitutionality of state law, the attorney general\u2019s office has not yet responded to this request. In fact, the attorney general has intervened in similar cases.<\/p>\n