Case Title: Robert L. Slamka v. General Heating and Air Conditioning

Citation: 

Docket Number: 2020AP000128

State: wisconsin

Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Date: 2022-11-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
2022 WI 68 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
2020AP128 
 
 
 
 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
Robert L. Slamka, 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, 
     v. 
General Heating and Air Conditioning Inc. and  
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 
          Respondents-Respondents. 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
Reported at 397 Wis. 2d, 959 N.W.2d 89 
(2021 – unpublished) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
November 4, 2022   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
September 9, 2022   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Dane   
 
JUDGE: 
Mario White   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
Per curiam. ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J., filed a concurring opinion, 
in which DALLET, J., joined. 
NOT PARTICIPATING: 
        
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
 
For the petitioner-appellant-petitioner, there were briefs 
filed by Walter W. Stern III and Walter W. Stern & Associates, 
Kenosha. There was an oral argument by Walter W. Stern III.  
 
For 
respondent-respondent 
General 
Heating 
and 
Air 
Conditioning Inc., there was a brief filed by Daniel A. Kaplan, 
Scott T. Allen, and Foley & Lardner LLP, Madison. There was an 
oral argument by Daniel A. Kaplan.  
 
 
 
2 
For respondent-respondent Wisconsin Employment Relations 
Commission, there was a brief filed by Steven C. Kilpatrick, 
assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Joshua L. 
Kaul, attorney general. There was an oral argument by Steven C. 
Kilpatrick, assistant attorney general.  
 
 
 
 
2022 WI 68 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.   2020AP128 
(L.C. No. 
2019CV1704) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Robert L. Slamka, 
 
          Petitioner-Appellant-Petitioner, 
 
     v. 
 
General Heating and Air Conditioning Inc. and  
Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission, 
 
          Respondents-Respondents. 
FILED 
 
NOV 4, 2022 
 
Sheila T. Reiff 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Dismissed as 
improvidently granted.   
 
¶1 
PER CURIAM.   Robert Slamka petitioned for review of a 
decision of the court of appeals, Slamka v. General Heating & 
Air Conditioning Inc., No. 2020AP128, unpublished slip op. (Wis. 
Ct. App. Mar. 11, 2021) (per curiam), that affirmed an order of 
the circuit court affirming the Wisconsin Employment Relations 
Commission's decision to dismiss Slamka's complaint against 
General Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. under Wis. Stat. 
§ 111.04(3)(a) (2017-18).  After reviewing the record and the 
briefs, and after hearing oral arguments, we conclude that this 
matter should be dismissed as improvidently granted.   
No. 
2020AP128   
 
2 
 
By the Court.—The review of the decision of the court of 
appeals is dismissed as improvidently granted.   
 
 
No.  2020AP128.awb 
 
1 
 
 
¶2 
ANN 
WALSH 
BRADLEY, 
J.   (concurring). 
 
I 
write 
separately because I believe that this court should explain to 
the litigants and the public the reason for its dismissal.  The 
litigants, after all, have expended substantial effort and 
resources arguing the case before us. 
¶3 
We granted review in order to address what we then 
thought was an issue that would result in the development of the 
law.  And now, without explanation, the court disposes of the 
case in a terse per curiam decision, dismissing the case as 
improvidently granted.  An examination of such dismissals in 
recent years reveals a largely inconsistent practice with regard 
to whether this court provides any explanation for its decision.1 
¶4 
The result of the court's inconsistent practice is a 
lack of guidance for potential litigants and the public, as well 
as an effective negation of the numerous hours of work and sums 
of money spent seeking a decision on the merits.  Because there 
                                                 
1 For examples of dismissals without explanation, see Cobb 
v. King, 2022 WI 59, 403 Wis. 2d 198, 976 N.W.2d 410; Fond du 
Lac County v. S.N.W., 2021 WI 41, 396 Wis. 2d 773, 958 
N.W.2d 530; State v. Kloss, 2020 WI 26, 390 Wis. 2d 685, 939 
N.W.2d 564; 
Waukesha 
County 
v. 
J.J.H., 
2020 
WI 
22, 
390 
Wis. 2d 531, 939 N.W.2d 49; Halbman v. Barrock, 2017 WI 91, 378 
Wis. 2d 17, 902 N.W.2d 248.   
In contrast, for examples of explanations provided by the 
court for a dismissal as improvidently granted, see Smith v. 
Anderson, 2017 WI 43, 374 Wis. 2d 715, 893 N.W.2d 790; Michael 
J. Waldvogel Trucking, LLC v. LIRC, 2012 WI 28, 339 Wis. 2d 248, 
810 
N.W.2d 811; 
Nedvidek 
v. 
Kuipers, 
2009 
WI 
44, 
317 
Wis. 2d 340, 766 N.W.2d 205; State v. Welda, 2009 WI 35, 317 
Wis. 2d 87, 765 N.W.2d 555; State v. Gajewski, 2009 WI 22, 316 
Wis. 2d 1, 762 N.W.2d 104; State v. Townsend, 2007 WI 31, 299 
Wis. 2d 672, 728 N.W.2d 342. 
No.  2020AP128.awb 
 
2 
 
is a strong public policy rationale behind providing reasons for 
a dismissal as improvidently granted, the court's general 
practice should be to provide an explanation for such a 
dismissal, and as such it should have provided an explanation in 
this case. 
¶5 
After reviewing the court of appeals opinion, together 
with the record and the briefs, and after hearing oral 
arguments, I agree with the per curiam that this review should 
be deemed improvidently granted because the issue for which we 
took this case will not lead to any further development of the 
law.  See Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.62(1r) (2019-20).  Thus, 
further review by this court and publication of an opinion would 
not serve any meaningful purpose. 
¶6 
Accordingly, I respectfully concur. 
¶7 
I am authorized to state that Justice REBECCA FRANK 
DALLET joins this concurrence. 
 
 
No.  2020AP128.awb