2010AP1799 City of Menasha v. WERC

Listen to this article

Labor
MERC; arbitration

Sections 111.70(4)(c)2.b. and (4)(mc)1., read together, permit the negotiation of alternative dispute resolution procedures, but require arbitration as an alternative if sec. 62.13(5) is a designated procedure.
“The City additionally cites to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau Summary of Budget Provisions of the Committee of Conference dated October 2007. This summary addresses the changes to collective bargaining law, which included the adoption of Wis. Stat. § 111.70(4)(mc)1., stating: The amendment would permit collective bargaining agreements for fire fighters to establish different dispute resolution procedures, including arbitration, than those provided under current law (PFC or other tribunal review and an option to appeal to the Circuit Court). Further, a municipal employer would be prohibited from bargaining collectively with respect to any prohibition of access to arbitration as an alternative to the disciplinary procedures under current law. As a result, each fire fighter collective bargaining agreement would be allowed to specify dispute resolution procedures applicable to the employees covered by each agreement. The City argues, and we agree, that this ‘makes clear that a bargaining agreement is allowed to specify a specific dispute resolution procedure.’ However, we do not agree with the City that this language ‘explicitly rejects any statutory interpretation requiring arbitration in lieu of the Wis. Stat. § 62.13 procedures.’ Nor does the governor’s veto message support the City’s interpretation. The governor’s veto message provides that § 111.70(4)(c)2.b. and (4)(mc) ‘permit collective bargaining agreements … to contain dispute resolution procedures as an alternative to the Circuit Court appeals process. In addition, municipal employers are prohibited from refusing to collectively bargain … over arbitration ….’ The City argues that this legislative history demonstrates that arbitration is just one alternative means of dispute resolution. While that is true, and WERC concedes as much, none of this history rules out our bottom line conclusion that § 111.70(4)(c)2.b. permits arbitration while § 111.70(4)(mc)1. requires arbitration as an alternative if § 62.13(5) is a designated procedure.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2010AP1799 City of Menasha v. WERC

Dist. II, Winnebago County, Key, J., Neubauer, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Macy, James R., Oshkosh; Yokom, Mark F., Oshkosh; For Respondent: Rice, David C., Madison; Ehlke, Bruce F., Madison

Full Text