Description: Description: C:\Users\Marshall Gratz\Documents\webdocs4\werc.wi.gov\wwwroot\DOAroot\smseal.gifDescription: Description: C:\Users\Marshall Gratz\Documents\webdocs4\werc.wi.gov\wwwroot\DOAroot\bluonwht.gif


Outline of Recent WERC Developments -- February 2003


WERC DECISION UPDATE

Presented at WERC Professional Staff Meeting

by Peter G. Davis, WERC General Counsel

February 21, 2003

 

MILWAUKEE SCHOOLS, DEC. NO. 30201-C (WERC, 10/02)

Where the Court elected to honor the Commission’s jurisdiction under Sec. 111.70(3)(a) 5, Stats. rather than proceed to consider the merits of the employer’s Chapter 788 motion to vacate an award, the pending Chapter 788 motion does not insulate the employer from liability under Sec. 111.70(3)(a) 5, Stats. for refusing to comply with the award.

VILLAGE OF WILLIAMS BAY, DEC. NO. 30385-A (WERC, 9/02)

A contractual interest arbitration proposal is a permissive subject of bargaining.

STATE OF WISCONSIN (PICHELMANN), DEC. NO. 30124-D (WERC, 1/03)

Statutory right of employee to present grievances to the employer is distinct from any contractual employee right to file grievances.

No right to union representation in employer/employee meeting held to advise employee of discipline the employer has decided to impose.

Delay caused by employer/union agreement to extend time periods for processing contractual grievances does not have reasonable tendency to interfere with employee’s statutory rights even though such delay may discourage employees from filing grievances.

Employer answer requesting attorneys fees and costs does not have a reasonable tendency to interfere with employee’s right to file an unfair labor practice complaint.

STATE OF WISCONSIN (PESHUT), DEC. NO. 30125-F (WERC, 1/03)

Union business agent’s raising concerns about employee’s conduct as a union steward did not have a reasonable tendency to interfere with employee’s exercise of statutory rights. Even if such reasonable tendency was present, union’s valid business need to police the conduct of its stewards would warrant a finding of no interference.

CITY OF EAU CLAIRE, DEC. NO. 29346-C (WERC, 12/02)

Rejection of employer argument that there is a distinction between that status quo that must be maintained during a contract hiatus and the status quo form which the parties bargain a successor agreement.

Specific 1990 grievance settlement agreement defined status quo rather than general provisions of the expired 1995-1997 contract.

Employer’s interest in saving money does not establish "necessity" for modifying the status quo.

CITY OF MADISON, DEC. NO. 30288-B (1/03)

Discussion of the scope of phrase "employee’s legal rights" in the context of Sec. 111.70(3)(b) 1, Stats. that provides it is a prohibited practice for a union "To coerce or intimidate a municipal employee in the enjoyment of the employee’s legal rights, including those guaranteed in sub. (2)."

1. Involve employer/employee relationship; or

2. Involve a MERA right; or

3. Coercion as to non-MERA right is motivated by the employee’s exercise of a MERA right.

Employee’s MERA right to "assist" a labor organization does not include right to be steward.

Alleged union violation of its constitution/bylaws or of LMRDA does not fall within the scope of Sec. 111.70(3)(b)1, Stats. because alleged basis for such coercion did not involve employee’s exercise of a MERA right.

CITY OF RHINELANDER, DEC. NO. 24518-C (WERC, 11/02)

Not enough confidential work to justify exclusion of two Deputy Clerk/Treasurers from the unit. Employer’s desire for the two positions to be "interchangeable" not persuasive-no "undue disruption" to have all confidential work performed by one Deputy Clerk/Treasurer.

SHEBOYGAN SCHOOLS, DEC. NO. 10488-B (WERC, 8/02), 10488-D (WERC, 11/02

Two Payroll Clerks are not confidential employees. Extent of exposure to employer’s bargaining strategy not sufficient to warrant exclusion.

SAUK COUNTY, DEC. NO. 17343-C (WERC, 11/02)

Contractual recognition clause does not clearly exclude positions union seeks to include so Commission proceeds to the merits of the unit clarification petition.

TOWN OF CALEDONIA, DEC. NO. 30538 (WERC, 2/03)

Contractual recognition clause dictates unit placement of employee. Units in question are defined by organizational structure-not nature of work performed.

 Description: Description: C:\Users\Marshall Gratz\Documents\webdocs4\werc.wi.gov\wwwroot\DOAroot\horizbar.gif

[services and personnel] [statutes, rules and ethics codes] [case processing forms and guides] [case databases and digests] [news and publications] [links to other resources] [about this site][WERC Home]

[State of Wisconsin Home]

This page constitutes a public domain communication of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission. The URL of this page is http://badger.state.wi.us/agencies/werc/outline_recent_developments_february_2003.htm . Last modified on 18 Mar 2003. Comments, questions and suggestions