Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Statutory Interpretation – Pension – Collective Bargaining Agreement

By: Derek Hawkins//April 23, 2019//

Statutory Interpretation – Pension – Collective Bargaining Agreement

By: Derek Hawkins//April 23, 2019//

Listen to this article

WI Supreme Court

Case Name: Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County

Case No.: 2019 WI 24

Focus: Statutory Interpretation – Pension – Collective Bargaining Agreement

Milwaukee County seeks to deny what it characterizes as “unusually generous” pension benefits to certain members of Milwaukee District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (DC-48), citing the County’s structural deficit, the escalating cost of the Employees’ Retirement System of the County of Milwaukee (ERS), and the County’s intention to grant a particular benefit to only those represented employees who were hired before 1994. Known as the “Rule of 75,” this benefit allows an eligible employee to receive a full pension when his age plus years of service total 75. After the Wisconsin legislature enacted 2011 Wis. Act 10, which limited collective bargaining to base wages for municipal employees, the County resolved to codify existing Rule of 75 eligibility for nonrepresented employees. Instead, the County enacted an ordinance granting Rule of 75 benefits to all employees “not covered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement” as long as those employees were hired before 2006.

At the time of enactment, County employees who were represented by DC-48 were no longer covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA), the last of which expired in 2009. In order to avoid paying $6.8 million in benefits the County says it never intended to grant, the County urges the court to interpret “not covered by the terms of a collective bargaining agreement” to mean “not represented by a union.” Because we must apply the plain meaning of the ordinance’s text rather than rewrite it to reflect what the County may have intended, we reject the County’s request and affirm the court of appeals.

Affirmed

Concur:

Dissent: ZIEGLER, J., dissents, joined by ROGGENSACK, C.J. (opinion filed).

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.

Polls

What kind of stories do you want to read more of?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests