Sign In
  • WisBar News
    June 13, 2011

    City cannot prohibit arbitration as an alternative in police disciplinary actions

    June 13, 2011 – In a collective bargaining dispute between the City of Menasha and Menasha Professional Police Union Local 603, a Wisconsin appeals court concluded that the Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA) permits bargaining as to dispute resolution procedures on disciplinary matters.

    City cannot prohibit arbitration as an alternative in police disciplinary actions

    In a case of first impression, appeals court rules that the city cannot bargain away employees' right to arbitration as an alternative procedure in discipline cases.

    By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

    City cannot prohibit arbitration as an   alternative in police disciplinary actions June 13, 2011 – In a collective bargaining dispute between the City of Menasha and Menasha Professional Police Union Local 603, a Wisconsin appeals court concluded that the Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA) permits bargaining as to dispute resolution procedures on disciplinary matters.

    However, the court in City of Menasha v. WERC, 2010AP1799 (June 8), also clarified that if parties bargain to use procedures under Wis. Stat section 62.13(5) – disciplinary actions against subordinates – then MERA requires arbitration as an alternative form of dispute resolution.

    In negotiations for a 2009 bargaining agreement between Menasha and its police department, Menasha wanted language to specify that section 62.13(5) procedures be used when a union represented employee appeals a disciplinary action.

    The police department’s union filed a petition with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), asking for a declaratory ruling to clarify whether MERA prohibits bargaining on that subject. WERC concluded that MERA does prohibit it.

    WERC found that Menasha’s proposal would prohibit access to arbitration as an alternative to dispute resolution, and Wis. Stat. section 111.70(4)(mc)1 prohibits a municipal employer from bargaining collectively with respect to “[t]he prohibition of access to arbitration as an alternative to the procedures in s. 62.13 (5).” On appeal, the circuit court affirmed.

    Appeals court judge Lisa Neubauer identified the issue as one of first impression, and concluded that the “legislature’s plain language makes the ‘prohibition of access to arbitration’ a ‘prohibited subject of bargaining.’”

    The court agreed that MERA permits bargaining agreements that specify a dispute resolution procedure, but requires arbitration as an alternative if section 62.13(5) procedures are used. Under that section, a board of police and fire commissioners decides disciplinary matters.

    “[W]e recognize Wisconsin’s long history with police and fire commissions,” Judge Neubauer wrote. “We also acknowledge the City’s concern regarding the impact of § 111.70(4)(mc)1 on bargaining and local control, including the possibility that it could reduce the role of the police and fire commissions in this state, or, at the very least, create a procedure involving two potential decision makers.

    “However, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the legislature; we may not rewrite the statute,” Judge Neubauer explained.



Join the conversation! Log in to leave a comment.

News & Pubs Search

-
Format: MM/DD/YYYY