01-1057 Milwaukee Police Association et al. v. City of Milwaukee

Listen to this article

Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs’ request to compel the city to arbitrate their grievances.

“The crux of the City’s decision to not arbitrate the grievances filed by Gustafson and Cornejo, and of the trial court’s ruling upholding that decision, is that counsel for the officers indicated at the hearing before the arbitrator that Gustafson and Cornejo were relying on the management-rights clause in Article 5, paragraph 1, which subjected the exercise of police-management discretion to the United States Constitution. …

“The grievance in this case indicated on its face that it was filed, inter alia, under Article 7, which, as we have seen, encompasses ‘[d]ifferences involving the interpretation, application or enforcement’ of the collective bargaining agreement ‘or the application of a rule or regulation’ of the police department ‘affecting … conditions of employment.’ This provision thus encompasses the complaint alleged in the officers’ grievances-their contention that their ‘working conditions’ were adversely affected in retaliation for their exercise of their free-speech rights under the United States Constitution. As noted, the police department denied the grievances as a matter of contract-interpretation, without inquiry into the truth or falsity of the officers’ allegations, based on its view that the rights granted to department management by Article 5 of the collective bargaining agreement permitted Arreola and Jones to do what Gustafson and Cornejo claim they did: transfer them from one duty assignment to another in retaliation for their speaking out about what they contended was misconduct by Jones. …

“Significantly, the collective bargaining agreement does not require that grievants specify either a provision of the agreement or a department rule or regulation that they contend was violated; by the clear language of the collective bargaining agreement, a grievance passes specificity muster if it identifies the provision under which it is filed. … The grievances filed by Gustafson and Cornejo did precisely that, and the City had fair notice of the issues to be arbitrated.”

Reversed and remanded.

Publication in the official reports is recommended.

Dist I, Milwaukee County, Hansher, J., Fine, J.

Attorneys:

For Appellant: William R. Rettko, Brookfield

For Respondent: Thomas J. Beamish, Milwaukee; Stuart S. Mukamal, Milwaukee