v.
Jefferson County Constables Association
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
══════════ No. 16-0498 ══════════
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TEXAS, PETITIONER, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY CONSTABLES ASSOCIATION, RESPONDENT ══════════════════════════════════════════ ON PETITION FOR REVIEW FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS ══════════════════════════════════════════ JUSTICE BOYD, joined by JUSTICE JOHNSON, dissenting. Deputy constables provide important law-enforcement services to the communities they serve. But the policy decision to grant them authority to engage in collective bargaining belongs to the Legislature, not this Court. The Legislature has granted that authority only to “fire fighters” and “police officers.”1 Under Texas law, deputy constables are not “police officers” any more than police officers are deputy constables. Essentially for the reasons the Beaumont and San Antonio Courts of Appeals have explained,2 I do not agree with the Court’s holding that deputy constables are “police officers” under the Collective Bargaining Act.
Deputy constables may “regularly serve[] in a professional law enforcement capacity,” but they provide that service as employees of the constable’s office, not as employees of “the police department of a political subdivision.”9 Nothing in the Collective Bargaining Act even suggests that it defines or uses the terms “police officer” and “police department” differently than the other Texas statutes that consistently use those terms. Because the Collective Bargaining Act applies only to fire fighters and police officers, it does not apply to deputy constables. If the Legislature had intended to permit deputy constables—or even all peace officers—to engage in collective bargaining, it could, should, and would have said so. Because the Court holds otherwise, I respectfully dissent.
_____________________ Jeffrey S. Boyd Justice Opinion delivered: April 13, 2018