Title: Milwaukee Police Association v. Nannette H. Hegerty

State: wisconsin

Issuer: Wisconsin Supreme Court

Document:

2005 WI 28 
 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN 
 
 
 
 
 
CASE NO.: 
03-3081 
COMPLETE TITLE: 
 
 
Milwaukee Police Association, Local 21,  
IUPA, AFL-CIO, Matthew Grauberger,  
Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization,  
          Plaintiffs-Respondents-Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Nannette H. Hegerty, Chief of Police for  
the City of Milwaukee, and City of Milwaukee,  
          Defendants-Appellants. 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW OF A DECISION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS 
2004 WI App 148 
Reported at:  275 Wis. 2d 300, 685 N.W.2d 864 
(Ct. App. 2004 – Published) 
 
 
OPINION FILED: 
March 22, 2005   
SUBMITTED ON BRIEFS: 
        
ORAL ARGUMENT: 
February 3, 2005   
 
 
SOURCE OF APPEAL: 
 
 
COURT: 
Circuit   
 
COUNTY: 
Milwaukee   
 
JUDGE: 
Daniel A. Noonan   
 
 
 
JUSTICES: 
 
 
CONCURRED: 
        
 
DISSENTED: 
        
 
NOT PARTICIPATING:         
 
 
 
ATTORNEYS: 
 
For 
the 
plaintiffs-respondents-petitioners 
there 
were 
briefs by Jonathan Cermele, Rachel L. Pings and Eggert & 
Cermele, S.C., Milwaukee, and oral argument by Jonathan Cermele. 
 
For the defendants-appellants there was a brief by Grant F. 
Langley and Donald L. Schriefer, Milwaukee, and oral argument by 
Donald L. Schriefer. 
 
 
2005 WI 28 
NOTICE 
This opinion is subject to further 
editing and modification.  The final 
version will appear in the bound 
volume of the official reports.   
No.  03-3081  
(L.C. No. 
02 CV 9910) 
STATE OF WISCONSIN  
 
 
   : 
IN SUPREME COURT 
 
 
Milwaukee Police Association, Local 21,  
IUPA, AFL-CIO, Matthew Grauberger,  
Milwaukee Police Supervisors'  
Organization,  
 
          Plaintiffs-Respondents- 
          Petitioners, 
 
     v. 
 
Nannette H. Hegerty, Chief of Police for  
the City of Milwaukee, and City of  
Milwaukee,  
 
          Defendants-Appellants. 
 
FILED 
 
MAR 22, 2005 
 
Cornelia G. Clark 
Clerk of Supreme Court 
 
 
 
 
 
REVIEW of a decision of the Court of Appeals.  Reversed.   
 
¶1 
ANN WALSH BRADLEY, J.   The petitioners, Milwaukee 
Police Association, Local 21, IUPA, AFL-CIO, Matthew Grauberger, 
and Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization, seek review of a 
published decision of the court of appeals reversing an order of 
the circuit court, which had ruled in favor of the petitioners.1  
                                                 
1 Milwaukee Police Assoc. v. Hegerty, 2004 WI App 148, 275 
Wis. 2d 300, 685 N.W.2d 864 (reversing an order of the circuit 
court for Milwaukee County, Daniel A. Noonan, Judge). 
No. 
03-3081   
 
2 
 
In this case we must determine whether the parties' collective 
bargaining 
agreements establish a 
different 
frequency for 
payment of overtime compensation than the 31-day frequency set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1) (2001-02).2  The petitioners 
assert that the court of appeals erred in concluding that the 
31-day frequency for payment controlled.  They maintain that 
their collective bargaining agreements establish a shorter 
frequency of payment, 12 days after the end of the pay period in 
which the overtime was earned.  
¶2 
We agree with the petitioners that the City of 
Milwaukee is required to pay overtime compensation within 12 
days after the end of the pay period in which the overtime was 
earned.  Here, the collective bargaining agreements in question 
defer to the Milwaukee City Charter Ordinances.  We interpret 
Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 5-06 as requiring the bi-
weekly payment of overtime compensation.  Moreover, custom and 
past practice of the parties indicate that the City of Milwaukee 
has historically paid overtime on the payday immediately 
following the period in which it was earned.  Accordingly, we 
reverse the decision of the court of appeals.    
I 
 
¶3 
The Milwaukee Police Association (MPA) and Milwaukee 
Police Supervisors' Organization (MPSO) are labor organizations 
recognized by the City of Milwaukee (City) for the Milwaukee 
                                                 
2 All references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2001-
02 version unless otherwise noted. 
No. 
03-3081   
 
3 
 
Police Department.  The former is the exclusive bargaining 
representative for certain non-supervisory police officers, 
while the latter is the exclusive bargaining representative for 
certain officers from rank of Sergeant through Deputy-Inspector 
of Police. 
 
¶4 
This case arose after delays in processing a number of 
overtime cards in periods 16-21 of 2002 because of problems with 
the Police Department's mainframe computer.3  During that time, 
the City allegedly failed to pay members of the MPA and MPSO a 
total of $824,040.29 in overtime compensation.  It was this 
amount of earned overtime, together with what the police 
organizations believed was its untimely eventual payment, which 
formed the basis for this cause of action. 
 
¶5 
Since 1972, City employees have been paid bi-weekly on 
every other Thursday.  The payday falls 12 days after the end of 
a two-week pay period in which the compensation is earned. 
 
¶6 
On October 2, 2002, the MPA and MPSO commenced suit 
seeking a declaratory judgment that the defendants-appellants' 
actions in failing to make timely payments of earned overtime 
violated Wis. Stat. Ch. 109; temporary and permanent injunctions 
enjoining 
the 
defendants-appellants 
from 
failing 
to 
make 
                                                 
3 As the City explains in its brief, contractual overtime is 
tracked by use of cards that employees complete whenever they 
work outside their regular hours.  The data on these cards is 
then entered into the Police Department's mainframe computer by 
data entry personnel and transferred to the City Comptroller's 
Office where the information is processed for payment.  The 
problems with the mainframe computer resulted in delays both in 
entering and transferring the overtime card data.    
No. 
03-3081   
 
4 
 
overtime 
payments 
according 
to 
the 
parties' 
collectively 
bargained and long-standing practices; penalties of up to 50 
percent of delayed overtime payments; attorney fees; and 
liquidated damages.4  The police organizations also filed a 
motion for a temporary restraining order. 
 
¶7 
A hearing on the police organizations' request for a 
temporary restraining order was held on October 16, 2002.  The 
circuit court granted the motion, preserving the status quo.  
The police organizations then filed a summary judgment motion, 
and the City responded with a summary judgment motion of its 
own.  After oral argument, the circuit court found there were no 
genuine issues of material fact and determined that the police 
organizations were entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 
 
¶8 
In its decision, the circuit court concluded that (1) 
Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance (MCCO) § 5-06 required all 
wages, including overtime, to be paid 12 days after the end of 
the two-week pay period in which the wages were earned; (2) the 
parties collectively bargained an exception to the 31-day 
frequency of payment contained in Wis. Stat. Ch. 109 by 
subordinating their agreements to the MCCO in cases of conflict 
between the two; and (3) the City historically paid overtime in 
the pay period immediately following the period in which it was 
earned. 
                                                 
4 The police organizations indicate in the statement of 
facts in their brief that they subsequently "waived their claims 
for damages and penalties under ch. 109." 
No. 
03-3081   
 
5 
 
 
¶9 
On June 2, 2004, a divided court of appeals reversed 
the order of the circuit court.  In doing so, the majority 
acknowledged that the parties subordinated their collective 
bargaining agreements to the MCCO in cases of conflict between 
the two.  However, it held that no such conflict existed in the 
present case because neither agreement specified how soon 
overtime compensation must be paid.  Milwaukee Police Assoc. v. 
Hegerty, 2004 WI App 148, ¶6, 275 Wis. 2d 300, 685 N.W.2d 864.  
Accordingly, the majority observed that, "[s]imply put, there is 
nothing in their collective bargaining agreements that, in the 
words of § 109.03(1)(a), can be read as 'establishing a 
different frequency for wage payments' than the thirty-one day 
period mandated by § 109.03(1)."  Id., ¶9. 
 
¶10 Judge Wedemeyer dissented from the majority opinion.  
Although he agreed with the majority that the analysis was 
simple, he concluded that this case presented a conflict in the 
application of the collective bargaining agreements.  Id., ¶14 
(Wedemeyer, J., dissenting).  The conflict stemmed from the 
City's contention that the agreements did not have to comply 
with MCCO § 5-06.  Id.  Therefore, the City was applying the 
agreements to permit overtime compensation to be paid within 31 
days or monthly rather than the bi-weekly payment as set forth 
in the MCCO.  Id.  Because of this conflict in application, the 
MCCO requirement of paying its employees bi-weekly trumped the 
terms of the agreements.  Id.  Judge Wedemeyer further noted 
that "[w]ith the exception of occasional mistake, error, or 
computer glitches, the City's past practice has been to pay 
No. 
03-3081   
 
6 
 
overtime to the union employees in the pay period immediately 
following the period in which it was earned."  Id., ¶16 
(Wedemeyer, J., dissenting). 
II 
 
¶11 This case presents a single issue for our review.  We 
must 
determine whether 
the 
parties' 
collective 
bargaining 
agreements establish a different frequency for payment of 
overtime compensation than the one set forth by Wis. Stat. § 
109.03(1).  Resolution of this inquiry involves interpretation 
of statute, collective bargaining agreement, and ordinance.  
Each of these present a question of law subject to independent 
appellate review.  See Roth v. City of Glendale, 2000 WI 100, 
¶15, 237 Wis. 2d 173, 614 N.W.2d 467; State v. Ozaukee County 
Bd. of Adjustment, 152 Wis. 2d 552, 559, 449 N.W.2d 47 (Ct. App. 
1989). 
III 
 
¶12 We begin our discussion with the relevant statute.  
Wisconsin Stat. § 109.03(1) addresses the general time period 
that employees must be paid wages.  It provides that, "[e]very 
employer shall as often as monthly pay to every employee engaged 
in the employer's business . . . all wages earned by the 
employee to a day not more than 31 days prior to the date of 
payment."  Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1).   
¶13 That statute further provides, however, that this 
"default" period of 31 days does not apply when employees are 
"covered 
under 
a 
valid 
collective 
bargaining 
agreement 
establishing a different frequency for wage payments . . . ."  
No. 
03-3081   
 
7 
 
Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1)(a).  In this case, it is undisputed that 
the police organizations are covered under valid collective 
bargaining agreements.  The question therefore becomes whether 
their agreements with the City establish a different frequency 
of payment than the one set forth in Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1).   
¶14  The pertinent provision of the agreement between the 
MPA and the City is Article 4.  It states that the MCCO applies 
if any of its provisions or its application conflicts with the 
collective bargaining agreement.  Article 4 provides as follows: 
In the event that the provisions of this Agreement or 
its 
application 
conflicts 
with 
the 
legislative 
authority which devolves upon the Common Council of 
the City of Milwaukee as more fully set forth in the 
provisions of the Milwaukee City Charter, Section 
62.50, 
Wisconsin 
Statutes, 
1977, 
and 
amendments 
thereto, 
pertaining 
to 
the 
powers, 
duties 
and 
responsibilities of the Chief of Police and the Board 
of Fire and Police Commissioners or the Municipal 
Budget Law, Chapter 65, Wisconsin Statutes, 1971, or 
other applicable laws or statutes, this Agreement 
shall be subject to such provisions. 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
¶15 Article 4 of the collective bargaining agreement 
between the MPSO and the City similarly provides that the MCCO 
controls in the event that it conflicts, either expressly or in 
application, with the collective bargaining agreement.  It 
states: 
In the event that the provisions of this Agreement or 
its 
application 
conflicts 
with 
the 
legislative 
authority delegated to the City Common Council, the 
Chief of Police and Fire and Police Commission (which 
authority being set forth more fully by:  The 
Milwaukee 
City 
Charter; 
the 
statutory 
duties, 
responsibilities and obligations of the Chief of 
No. 
03-3081   
 
8 
 
Police and the Fire and Police Commission as they are 
provided for in Section 62.50 of the Wisconsin 
Statutes; the Municipal Budget Law, which is set forth 
in Chapter 65 of the Wisconsin Statutes; or other 
applicable laws or statutes); then this Agreement 
shall be subordinate to such authority. 
(Emphasis added.) 
 
¶16 Citing these provisions, the police organizations 
contend 
that 
the 
parties 
subordinated 
their 
collective 
bargaining agreements to existing legislation in the event that 
the two conflicted.  They assert that MCCO § 5-06 requires that 
all compensation, including overtime, be paid bi-weekly (i.e., 
12 days after the pay period in which the compensation was 
earned).  Because the City has applied the collective bargaining 
agreements in a manner conflicting with MCCO § 5-06, the police 
organizations submit that MCCO § 5-06 controls the frequency of 
overtime payments.  
 
¶17 The City, meanwhile, asserts that MCCO § 5-06 does not 
require it to pay overtime on the 12th day following the end of 
the pay period in which the compensation was earned.  To begin, 
the City notes that MCCO § 5-06 is silent as to the frequency of 
overtime payments.  Moreover, it questions the import of Article 
4, arguing that (1) there is no conflict triggering its resort 
to MCCO § 5-06, and (2) the provisions merely guarantee 
managerial rights conferred upon the City and thus have no 
No. 
03-3081   
 
9 
 
relevance to this case.  Accordingly, the City maintains that 
the 31-day statutory rule governs its overtime payments.5   
 
¶18 In addressing the arguments of the parties, we must 
consider three separate matters.  Initially, we must determine 
whether the MCCO provides for a frequency of overtime payments.  
Then, we must decide whether either the provisions of the 
collective bargaining agreements or the application of the 
agreements conflict with the MCCO regarding that frequency.  
Finally, if such a conflict exists, we must resolve whether the 
language of the collective bargaining agreements is sufficient 
to provide complete deference to the MCCO.  
A. 
 
¶19 We begin by examining the frequency of overtime 
payments required under the MCCO.  MCCO § 5-06 provides as 
follows:  "Officers and employes of the city of Milwaukee shall 
be paid bi-weekly."  Admittedly, the charter ordinance does not 
answer the precise question before us.  That is, it makes no 
distinction as to the types of pay to which it refers (i.e., 
base pay, overtime, holiday pay, etc.).  However, by not 
                                                 
5 In essence, the City argues that it need not pay on the 
first payday following the two-week period in which the 
compensation was earned.  Rather, if circumstances warrant, it 
wants the flexibility to be able to pay on the second payday.  
It contends that a second payday approach complies with the 
statutory 31-day rule.  The police organizations contend, 
however, that a second payday approach violates the 31-day rule 
because payment earned for the first week of the two-week pay 
period will be outside of 31 days from the date earned.  Given 
our determination that the City must pay within 12 days of the 
end of the pay period in which the overtime is earned, we need 
not address this argument.   
No. 
03-3081   
 
10 
 
differentiating or limiting specific pay components, it is 
reasonable to infer that the drafters intended to require the 
bi-weekly payment of all compensation, including overtime.  This 
inference supports our conclusion that the City is required to 
pay overtime compensation within 12 days after the end of the 
pay period in which the overtime was earned.  Our conclusion is 
also supported by the title of MCCO § 5-06, Wis. Stat. Ch. 109, 
and the legislative history of MCCO § 5-06.  We consider each in 
turn. 
1. 
 
¶20 MCCO § 5-06 is entitled "Bi-weekly Payment of Salary."  
The title of an ordinance is persuasive evidence of the 
interpretation to be given to it.  See Mireles v. LIRC, 2000 WI 
96, ¶60, n. 13, 237 Wis. 2d 69, 613 N.W.2d 875; Ozaukee County, 
152 Wis. 2d at 559.  Although the term "salary" is not defined 
in MCCO § 5-06, the term is referenced in the preceding section, 
MCCO § 5-05.  We look to MCCO § 5-05 because a court cannot read 
individual sections of a charter ordinance in a vacuum, but 
rather must examine them as a whole.  See State v. Tollefson, 85 
Wis. 2d 162, 167, 270 N.W.2d 201 (1978).  
 
¶21 Under MCCO § 5-05, the term "salary" has an expansive 
connotation.  That charter ordinance provides that, with the 
exception of incentive compensation to improve productivity, 
officers and employees receiving a "salary" from the City may 
not receive compensation from the City other than the "salary" 
that is fixed and provided for the specific office.  Because 
officers 
get 
paid 
more 
than 
their 
base 
wage, 
"salary" 
No. 
03-3081   
 
11 
 
necessarily implies all remuneration.  Given this broad meaning 
of the term "salary" in the preceding section, it is reasonable 
to conclude that the salary referred to in the title of MCCO § 
5-06 includes overtime compensation and that overtime is part of 
the "bi-weekly" payment. 
2. 
¶22 A broad reading of MCCO § 5-06 is also consistent with 
Wis. Stat. Ch. 109.  Wisconsin Stat. § 109.03(1) sets forth the 
minimum or "floor" for the frequency of payment.  Although the 
City can give its employees something better, it cannot give 
them less.  It cannot transgress this default period of 31 days.   
¶23 Significantly, Wis. Stat. Ch. 109 not only sets forth 
that at a minimum employees must be paid within 31 days of when 
compensation was earned, but also answers the question of what 
compensation must be paid within that 31-day period.  Under Wis. 
Stat. § 109.01(1r), the term "wages" does not refer only to base 
salary or wage.  Rather, it refers to all remuneration, 
including overtime.  Wisconsin Stat. § 109.01(1r) provides: 
"Wage" or "wages" means remuneration payable to an 
employee for personal services, including salaries, 
commissions, holiday and vacation pay, overtime pay, 
severance 
pay 
or 
dismissal 
pay, 
supplemental 
unemployment benefit plan payments when required under 
a binding collective bargaining agreement, bonuses and 
any other similar advantages agreed upon between the 
employer and the employee or provided by the employer 
to the employees as an established policy. 
(Emphasis added.)   
¶24 By enacting MCCO § 5-06, the City has modified the 
minimum standard for frequency of payment set forth in Wis. 
No. 
03-3081   
 
12 
 
Stat. § 109.03(1).  However, it has not modified what must be 
paid within the newly established bi-weekly frequency.  As set 
forth in Wis. Stat. § 109.01(1r), overtime is included.  
Accordingly, it is reasonable to conclude that MCCO § 5-06 also 
encompasses overtime compensation. 
3. 
 
¶25 Finally, we find the legislative history of MCCO § 5-
06 instructive in establishing the frequency of overtime 
payments.  Before it was changed to its present form in 1972, 
the language of MCCO § 5-06 required payment of all wages on the 
very next payday following the pay period in which they were 
earned.  It stated that, "Officers and employes of the City of 
Milwaukee shall be paid bi-weekly on the second Friday following 
completion of the work period."  The subsequent modification 
removed "Friday" as the day on which the checks were to be 
issued.  Apparently this was done because the City was having 
problems issuing checks on Fridays when the Friday fell on a 
holiday.6   
 
¶26 Although the City maintains that 1972 change removed 
the requirement of paying overtime on the very next payday 
following the pay period in which it was earned, we are not 
persuaded.  At oral argument, the City Attorney acknowledged 
that the frequency of payment is a term and condition of 
                                                 
6 This was explained in a letter from the City Comptroller 
to the Common Council dated July 19, 1972.  That letter stated 
in relevant part, "We would like not to have the ordinance 
specifically state the date of payment because of holidays and 
other circumstances." 
No. 
03-3081   
 
13 
 
employment.  As such, the City would typically have had to 
bargain with the police organizations, which were in existence 
in 1972.  Because there is no evidence that such bargaining took 
place, we will not interpret the ordinance to have made such a 
significant change.  Instead, we conclude that the "bi-weekly" 
language of MCCO § 5-06 still requires payment of all wages, 
including overtime, on the very next payday following the pay 
period in which they were earned. 
B. 
 
¶27 Having determined that MCCO § 5-06 provides for a 
frequency of overtime payments, we consider next whether either 
provision of the collective bargaining agreements or the 
application of the agreements conflict with it as to the 
frequency of payment.  The City submits that there is no 
conflict, either expressed or in application.  It notes the 
agreements distinguish between base pay and overtime pay, 
establishing the frequency of payment for the former but not the 
latter.7  Because the agreements do not specify the frequency of 
payment for overtime, the City argues that there is no conflict 
triggering resort to outside law. 
 
¶28 It is true that the collective bargaining agreements 
in question do not contain express provisions relating to the 
timing of overtime payments.  However, this fact is irrelevant 
                                                 
7 In the agreement between the City and the MPA, the 
relevant sections for base salary and overtime are Articles 10 
and 15 respectively.  Meanwhile, in the agreement between the 
City and MPSO, the relevant sections for base salary and 
overtime are Articles 9 and 12 respectively. 
No. 
03-3081   
 
14 
 
in light of Article 4.  The Article 4 provisions demonstrate 
that the parties bargained for a different frequency of payment 
of overtime than the "default" period set forth in Wis. Stat. § 
109.03(1).  The reason for this is that Article 4 defers to MCCO 
§ 5-06 in the event that a conflict exists.  Under Article 4, 
the conflict need not be in the expressed terms of the 
agreements but may arise in the application of the agreements. 
 
¶29 This case presents a conflict in the application of 
the parties' collective bargaining agreements.  Here, the 
conflict 
arose 
from 
the 
City's 
failure 
to 
pay 
overtime 
compensation in a bi-weekly fashion, and its insistence that it 
has no obligation to do so.  Thus, it is the City's position 
that it applied the collective bargaining agreements in a manner 
to allow overtime compensation to be paid within 31 days or 
monthly.  Such an application conflicts with the requirements of 
MCCO § 5-06, as explained above. 
C. 
¶30 Accepting this conflict in application, we turn next 
to whether the language of the collective bargaining agreements 
is sufficient to provide complete deference to the MCCO.  Again, 
the City maintains that it is not.  It asserts that the Article 
4 provisions merely guarantee that managerial legislative rights 
conferred upon the City by various laws cannot be bargained 
away.  According to the City, the Article 4 provisions do not 
have any relevance here. 
¶31 On this matter, the argument of the City appears 
overstated.  The only way to find Article 4 irrelevant is to 
No. 
03-3081   
 
15 
 
ignore 
much 
of 
its 
text, 
which 
subjects 
the 
collective 
bargaining agreements to more than the City's managerial 
authority.  As relevant here, the provisions set forth above 
subordinate the agreements to the ordinances contained in the 
Charter and enacted under the Common Council's legislative 
authority.8  If this were not the case, there would have been no 
need to use the language as "set forth more fully by" or "as 
more fully set forth in" the provisions of the Charter.  
¶32 Accordingly, we conclude that when the City agreed to 
make its collective bargaining agreements "subject to" and 
"subordinate to" the Charter in the event of a conflict, it 
necessarily meant that the agreements deferred to all portions 
of the Charter, including MCCO § 5-06.  Thus, by agreeing to the 
Article 4 provisions, the City relinquished what would otherwise 
have been a statutory right to pay overtime compensation within 
31 days of the date earned.  If the City believes this result to 
be unwise or impractical, its remedy lies at the bargaining 
table or in changing the relevant legislation. 
IV 
¶33 Finally, we note that our decision today is consistent 
with the custom and past practice of the parties.  Bodies like 
the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission have often looked 
to past practice because it has proven to be a reliable 
                                                 
8 In addition to subjecting the agreements to the charter 
ordinances, the Article 4 provisions also subject the collective 
bargaining agreements to other outside bodies of law, such as 
Wis. Stat. § 62.50, Wis. Stat. Ch. 65, and "other applicable 
laws or statutes." 
No. 
03-3081   
 
16 
 
indicator of the parties' intent as to the status quo.  St. 
Croix Falls School Dist. v. WERC, 186 Wis. 2d 671, 678, 522 
N.W.2d 507 (Ct. App. 1994) (citing Mayville School Dist., Dec. 
No. 25144-D at 24 (WERC, 5/92); School Dist. of Wisconsin 
Rapids, Dec. No. 19084-C at 17 (WERC, 3/85)).    
¶34 In this case, the custom and past practice of the 
parties indicate that the City of Milwaukee has historically 
paid overtime in the pay period immediately following the period 
in which it was earned.9  Indeed, the City acknowledges that 
overtime compensation has regularly been paid within 12 days 
after that compensation was earned except in those instances 
where it has been paid with one pay period of delay because of 
any conceivable type of mistake, delay, hang-up, glitch, or the 
like that might occur from the moment an officer starts to 
complete his card through computer processing of the data on the 
card.10 
¶35 Inevitably there are circumstances that prevent an 
employer from complying with the timely payment of wages such as 
                                                 
9 The police organizations buttress this conclusion with a 
number of extrinsic documents, including the Milwaukee Police 
Department's own Standard Operating Procedure, letters from then 
City Labor Negotiator, James Geissner, and a document entitled 
the Penny-Difference Report. 
10 According to the City, the reason for this is simple.  
Because it is trying to run an orderly compensation system, it 
has to stay on top of things, especially when it is receiving 
5,000 to 10,000 overtime cards per pay period.  Although the 
City explains its actions in terms of "payroll prudence," we 
conclude that it is also a matter of contractual obligation for 
the reasons listed above. 
No. 
03-3081   
 
17 
 
overtime compensation.  For example, computers may malfunction, 
payroll personnel may get sick, or data entry personnel may make 
mistakes.  In such cases, circuit courts may exercise their 
discretion and choose not to award civil penalties or expenses 
to the employees.11  However, these exceptions cannot supplant 
the general rule that overtime compensation has customarily been 
paid within 12 days after the pay period in which that 
compensation was earned. 
V 
 
¶36 In sum, we agree with the petitioners that the City of 
Milwaukee is required to pay overtime compensation within 12 
days after the end of the pay period in which the overtime was 
earned.  Here, the collective bargaining agreements in question 
defer to the Milwaukee City Charter Ordinances.  We interpret 
Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 5-06 as requiring the bi-
weekly payment of overtime compensation.  Moreover, custom and 
past practice of the parties indicate that the City of Milwaukee 
has historically paid overtime on the payday immediately 
following the period in which it was earned.  Accordingly, we 
reverse the decision of the court of appeals.    
                                                 
11 Indeed, this court recently observed that, "[a] circuit 
court ultimately has discretion to award few or no civil 
penalties or expenses.  If the wage dispute was the result of an 
honest misunderstanding, a mistake, or a reasonable dispute, a 
circuit court might very well not award civil penalties or 
expenses to an employee who rushes into court and bypasses the 
alternative dispute 
resolution provided 
through 
the 
DWD."  
Hubbard v. Messer, 2003 WI 145, ¶40, 267 Wis. 2d 92, 673 N.W.2d 
676.  This discretion to impose civil penalties stems from the 
language "may order" in Wis. Stat. § 109.11(2).  
No. 
03-3081   
 
18 
 
By the Court.—The decision of the court of appeals is 
reversed. 
 
No. 
03-3081   
 
 
 
1