Milwaukee County cannot reduce employee hours to address projected budget shortfall 

By Joe Forward, Legal Writer, State Bar of Wisconsin

Dec. 28, 2010 – The District I Wisconsin appeals court recently upheld an arbitration award that said Milwaukee County could not reduce employee hours without a board resolution.

After Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, Wisconsin’s governor-elect, projected a $14.9 million deficit in the 2009 budget, he ordered department heads to cut employee work-weeks by five hours per week to save an estimated $4.5 million.

David Eisner, the local union president of Milwaukee District Council 48, filed a grievance on behalf of all union members affected by the order. The arbitrator ruled that, under the bargaining agreement, the county could only reduce employee hours “temporarily,” and Walker’s order was considered “permanent” because it would exceed 45 days.

The arbitrator next looked to Milwaukee County General Ordinance section 17.28 to determine that increases or decreases in employee hours cannot be changed without a resolution by the county board, and the board did not pass a resolution.

Relying on a 1975 umpire’s ruling cited by the county, the circuit court vacated the arbitrator’s award, ruling that Eisner’s grievance could not trigger arbitration because Eisner was not personally impacted by the reduced-hours order.

In Milwaukee County District Council 48 v. Milwaukee County, 2010AP535 (Dec. 21, 2010), the appeals court reversed the circuit court and upheld the arbitrator’s award, ruling that the arbitrator was not bound by the 1975 umpire’s ruling.

“[T]he collective-bargaining contract itself makes the Arbitrator the final word on whether there is arbitration jurisdiction under the collective bargaining contract,” wrote Judge Ralph Fine. “This is a significant grant of authority … by the collective-bargaining contract.”

The appeals court explained that a circuit court cannot overturn an arbitration award unless an arbitrator manifestly disregards the law, exceeds powers through perverse misconstruction, the award is illegal, or the award violates a strong public policy. The appeals court ruled that none of those factors were present in this case.

“It thus makes no difference if courts disagree with the Arbitrator’s analysis or even if that analysis is ‘wrong,’” Fine wrote.

Because the bargaining agreement gave the arbitrator vested authority to decide whether the parties’ collective bargaining agreement allowed the county to unilaterally reduce the union members’ hours, the arbitrator’s decision should be upheld, the appeals court ruled. The appeals court reversed and remanded with directions to the circuit court.