Case Name: Milwaukee Police Association, Local 21, IUPA, AFL-CIO, Matthew Grauberger, Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Nannette H. Hegerty, Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee, and City of Milwaukee, Defendants-Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 2004-06-02
Citations: 275 Wis. 2d 300
Docket Number: No. 03-3081
Parties: Milwaukee Police Association, Local 21, IUPA, AFL-CIO, Matthew Grauberger, Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Nannette H. Hegerty, Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee, and City of Milwaukee, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before Wedemeyer, PJ., Fine and Curley, JJ.
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 275
Pages: 300–310

Head Matter:
Milwaukee Police Association, Local 21, IUPA, AFL-CIO, Matthew Grauberger, Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Nannette H. Hegerty, Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee, and City of Milwaukee, Defendants-Appellants.
Court of Appeals
No. 03-3081.
Submitted on briefs May 4, 2004.
Decided June 2, 2004.
2004 WI App 148
(Also reported in 685 N.W.2d 864.)
On behalf of the defendants-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of Grant F. Langley, city attorney and Donald L. Schriefer, assistant city attorney, Milwaukee.
On behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents Milwaukee Police Association and Matthew Grauberger, the cause was submitted on the joint brief of Jonathan Cermele of Eggert & Cermele, S.C., Milwaukee and on behalf of the plaintiff-respondent Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization, by John Fuchs of Fuchs, Destefanis & Boyle, S.C., Milwaukee.
Before Wedemeyer, PJ., Fine and Curley, JJ.
Petition to review filed.
When this action was filed, Arthur Jones was the Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee. His term has expired and Nannette H. Hegerty is now the Chief of Police. Accordingly, pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 803.10(4), Chief Hegerty is automatically substituted as a party in this action.

Opinion:
FINE, J.
¶ 1. Nannette H. Hegerty, Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee, and the City of Milwaukee appeal the trial court's determination that the City must remit to police officer Matthew Grauberger and other members of the Milwaukee Police Association and the Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization overtime compensation within twelve days after that overtime compensation is earned, rather than within the thirty-one day window required by Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1).
¶ 2. This appeal presents a straight-forward issue of statutory application, which is subject to our de novo review. Truttschel v. Martin, 208 Wis. 2d 361, 364-365, 560 N.W.2d 315, 317 (Ct. App. 1997). If the language of a statute is clear on its face, we need not look any further than the statutory text to determine the statute's meaning. State v. Peters, 2003 WI 88, ¶ 14, 263 Wis. 2d 475, 481-482, 665 N.W.2d 171, 174.
¶ 3. The legislature has established a general rule that sets the time within which compensation to employees must be paid: "Eveiy 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). This "required frequency of wage payments" does not apply, however, to "[e]mployees covered under a valid collective bargaining agreement establishing a different frequency for wage payments." § 109.03(l)(a). No one disputes that all payments of overtime compensation, as material to this appeal, were made within thirty-one days after that overtime compensation was earned. The police officers and supervisors contend, however, that the "collective bargaining agreement" between the City and each union established "a different frequency for wage payments." We disagree.
¶ 4. As material here, the collective-bargaining agreements between the unions and the City have the following similar clauses:
The Milwaukee Police Association: "In the event that the provisions of this Agreement or application of this Agreement 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."
The Milwaukee Police Supervisors' Organization: "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 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."
Both collective-bargaining agreements have the standard integration clause: "This Agreement constitutes the full and complete agreement of the parties and there are no others, oral or written, except as herein contained." See Matthew v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co., 54 Wis. 2d 336, 341-342, 195 N.W.2d 611, 613-614 (1972) (giving effect to integration clause).
¶ 5. No one disputes that neither collective-bargaining agreement, in haec verba, "establishes] a different frequency for wage payments" than the thirty-one day window mandated by Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1). The police officers and supervisors contend, however, that the quoted language from the collective-bargaining agreements incorporates Milwaukee, Wis., City Charter Ordinance § 5-06, that § 5-06 "establishes] a different frequency for wage payments," and thus, by virtue of § 109.03(l)(a), the thirty-one day window in § 109.03(1) does not apply. We disagree.
¶ 6. Nothing in the quoted language from the collective-bargaining agreements relied on by the police officers and supervisors purports to incorporate anything; all it provides is that if the collective-bargaining agreement "conflicts" with anything in the Milwaukee City Charter or related specified legislation, the collective-bargaining agreement is "subordinate" or "subject" to that legislation. But "subordinate to" and "subject to" are not words of incorporation — saying that X is subject or subordinate to Y does not incorporate Y into X, it means that Y trumps X, and governs if there is a conflict. Moreover, there is no conflict, in words or application, between the collective-bargaining agreements and Milwaukee, Wis., City Charter Ordinance § 5-06 because nothing in either the collective-bargaining agreements or in § 5-06 says how soon overtime compensation must be paid after it is earned.
¶ 7. Milwaukee, Wis., City Charter Ordinance § 5-06 provides, as material here: "Officers and employes [sic] of the city of Milwaukee shall be paid bi-weekly." No one disputes that the police officers and supervisors received their paychecks "bi-weekly." They argue, however, that this "bi-weekly" paycheck should include all overtime earned within the twelve days preceding issuance of that "bi-weekly" check, and cobble together various scraps of alleged practice and subjective interpretations that they contend support their interpretation. But, as noted, the collective-bargaining agreements are integrated documents — external evidence of claimed ancillary agreements is immaterial. See Matthew, 54 Wis. 2d at 341-342, 195 N.W.2d at 613-614 (giving effect to integration clause). Additionally, "paid bi-weekly" as it appears in § 5-06 is not ambiguous; it means that employees must receive their paychecks (whatever period those paychecks cover) every two weeks. Significantly, the section used to read: "Officers and employes [sic] of the city of Milwaukee shall be paid bi-weekly on the second Friday following the completion of the work period." This language was changed to the current version in 1972, and if still extant might provide support for the position of the police officers and supervisors. But that language has long-since receded into the archives.
¶ 8. It is settled that in any conflict between a statute and an ordinance, the statute governs. Welter v. City of Milwaukee, 214 Wis. 2d 485, 492, 571 N.W.2d 459, 463 (Ct. App. 1997). But there is no conflict between Milwaukee, Wis., City Charter Ordinance § 5-06 and Wis. Stat. § 109.03(1). The former mandates the issuance of "bi-weekly" paychecks; the latter requires that all payroll checks, whatever their period of issuance, include compensation for "all wages earned by the employee to a day not more than 31 days prior to the date of payment."
¶ 9. The police officers and supervisors have pointed to nothing in the collective-bargaining agreements that would trigger an exemption under Wis. Stat. § 109.03(l)(a) from the thirty-one-day-window default provision in § 109.03(1). Simply put, there is nothing in their collective-bargaining agreements that, in the words of § 109.03(l)(a), can be read as "establishing a different frequency for wage payments" than the thirty-one day period mandated by § 109.03(1). Accordingly, their complaint seeking judicial override of the governing law must be dismissed.
By the Court — Order reversed.
The omitted language, designated by the ellipsis, concerns "employees engaged in logging operations and farm labor."
Milwaukee, Wis., City CHARTER ORDINANCE § 350-108 similarly provides: "The salaries and wages of all city officers and employes [sic] shall be paid biweekly."