Case Name: Kansas City Star Company, Respondent, v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations and others, Appellants
Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Wisconsin
Decision Date: 1974-05-08
Citations: 62 Wis. 2d 783
Docket Number: No. 259
Parties: Kansas City Star Company, Respondent, v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations and others, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Wisconsin Reports Second
Volume: 62
Pages: 783–790

Head Matter:
Kansas City Star Company, Respondent, v. Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations and others, Appellants.
No. 259.
Argued September 5, 1973.
Decided October 30, 1973.
Motion for rehearing denied May 8, 1974.
(Reported in 60 Wis. 2d 591, 211 N. W. 2d 488, and 217 N. W. 2d 666.)
For the appellants there were briefs by XJclmr W. Brandt, Department of Industry, Labor & Human Relations chief counsel, attorney; and Goldberg, Previant & Uelmen and Albert J. Goldberg of counsel, attorneys for William A. Abel, et al., all of Milwaukee.
For the respondent there were briefs by Carroll E. Metzner, Roger L. Gierhart, and Aberg, Bell, Blake & Metzner, all of Madison, and Allan L. Bioff, Leonmd Singer, and Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, all of Kansas City, Missouri.

Opinion:
The following opinion was filed May 8,1974.
Per Curiam
(on motion for rehearing). The employment contract did not spell out the terms of the right of the union to withdraw its termination notice, nor the existence of a right of the union to reinstate that notice prior to the ending date of the contract. In the absence of a specific provision in the contract as to the right to withdraw a termination notice, the department found that the union withdrew its termination notice and the department further found that as to the subsequent layoffs there was then no bona fide labor dispute in progress. These findings were supported by credible evidence as discussed in our original opinion.
We do not reach the question now raised for the first time by the employer asserting estoppel as to either the "department" or the union. Estoppel was not asserted before the department nor was there any point made of it either in the record before the department or in the trial court.