STATE OF WISCONSIN
BEFORE THE WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
WALWORTH COUNTY COURTHOUSE
EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 1925-B,
AFSCME, AFL-CIO, Complainant,
WALWORTH COUNTY, Respondent.
Decision No. 29123-A
Mr. Laurence Rodenstein, Staff Representative, on behalf of the
vonBriesen, Purtell & Roper, S.C., by Mr. James R.
Korom, on behalf of the County.
ORDER DENYING MOTION
Complainant Walworth County Courthouse Employees Union Local 1925-B,
AFL-CIO ("Union"), on February 24, 1997, filed a prohibited practices complaint with the
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission ("Commission"), against Walworth County
("County"), which alleged that it committed prohibited practices in violation of the Municipal
Employment Relations Act ("MERA") by unlawfully discriminating against Union adherents
by interfering with, and coercing them over their concerted, protected activities. Thereafter,
Commission on June 24, 1997, appointed the undersigned to act as Examiner and to make
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order pursuant to Secs. 111.70(4)(a) and 111.07,
The County on July 8, 1997, thereafter filed a Motion to Dismiss those parts of the
Union's complaint which predated the one year statute of limitations. After amending its
complaint on July 11, 1997, the Union on July 17, 1997, opposed said motion on the ground
Dec. No. 29123-A
intends to rely on events beyond the statute of limitations
for the sole purpose of helping to
reinforce a pattern of unlawful conduct, including acts of coercion, intimidation, retaliation
against union members and officers for lawful, protected activity.
Having considered the matter, I find that paragraphs D, E, F,
and G of the Union's July
11, 1997, amended complaint all predate the statute of limitations and that they may not be
relevant to the alleged misconduct occurring during the statute of limitations. It is
however, to now rule on whether these complaint allegations should be dismissed before
because it is not clear at the present time just how the Union intends to tie in such matters to
acts alleged to have occurred during the statute of limitations.
As a result, I am now denying the County's motion. However, the Union at the very
outset of the hearing will answer - paragraph by paragraph - just how such matters are
to its case. The County at that time will be given the opportunity to renew its motion.
Dated at Madison, Wisconsin this 15th day of October, 1997.
WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Amedeo Greco /s/
Amedeo Greco, Examiner