Document: 429 U.S. 167 97 S.Ct. 421 50 L.Ed.2d 376 CITY OF MADISON, JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 8, et al., Appellants,v.WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION al. No. 75-946. Argued Oct. 12, 1976. Decided Dec. Syllabus During the course of a regularly scheduled, open meeting appellant Board Education, public discussion turned to currently pending labor negotiations between board and teachers' union. One speaker was nonunion teacher who, over union objection, addressed one topic negotiations, namely, union's demand for "fair share" clause, which would require all teachers (whether members or not) pay dues. He read petition signed by in district, calling postponement issue until it could be given closer examination an impartial committee. Subsequently, after collective-bargaining agreement had been containing demands except filed complaint with appellee Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), claiming that committed prohibited practice violation law permitting speak at its because constituted member bargaining unit other than exclusive representative. The WERC found guilty ordered immediately cease desist from any employees but officials appear meetings on matters subject collective bargaining. upheld appeal, Supreme Court concluding teacher's statement before "negotiation" board, holding abridgment speech justified order "to avoid dangers attendant upon relative chaos management relations." Held : 1. circumstances do not present such danger labor-management relations as justify curtailing manner WERC. Pp. 173-176. (a) Where does sought bargain offered enter into he authorized their behalf, there is no basis his terse during negotiation board. Although views were consistent those union, communicating employer change fact alone negotiate contract 174. (b) Moreover, since public, merely also concerned citizen, seeking express important decision government. has so opened forum direct citizen involvement, may exclude who make up overwhelming proportion school are most proceedings. Whatever duties employer, when sits conduct business hear citizens, under First Amendment required discriminate speakers employment, content speech. P. 174-176. 2. WERC's order, being designed govern future punish past conduct, improper prior restraint expressions involving operation schools. 176-177. 69 Wis.2d 200, 231 N.W.2d 206, reversed remanded. Gerald Charles Kops, Madison, Wis., appellants. Robert C. Kelly, appellees. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented this appeal whether State constitutionally elected education prohibit teachers, representatives, meetings, participation permitted, if negotiations. 2 Madison Education Teachers, Inc. (MTI), parties calendar year 1971.1 In January 1971 commenced renewal MTI submitted number proposals. among them called inclusion so-called "fair-share" not, dues defray costs expressly permits provisions municipal employee agreements. Wis.Stat. § 111.70(2) (1973). Another proposal provision binding arbitration dismissals. Both these resisted deadlocked November issues still unresolved, arbitration. 3 same month, two Holmquist Reed, unit, mailed letter district expressing opposition proposal.2 Two hundred replied, commenting favorably Reed's position. Thereupon drafted one-year delay implementation while more closely analyzed committee.3 circulated December 6, 1971. Reed intended results effort board's evening. 4 Because stalemate arranged have pickets meeting. addition, 300 400 attended support portion devoted expression president took floor spoke ongoing concluded remarks presenting 1,300-1,400 expeditious resolution next floor, John Matthews, representative MTI, unsuccessfully attempted dissuade him speaking. Matthews spoken requested refuse permit speak. stated represented "an informal committee 72 49 schools" desired inform education, already informed informational survey concerning clause. then morning 31 schools reports received, 53% petition. 5 neither side adequately confused about meaning proposal. saying: "Due confusion, we wish take stand itself, ask only alternatives clearly importantly general whom responsible. We simply communication, confrontation." sole response inquiring answered would. Holmquist's presentation lasted approximately 21/2 minutes. 6 Later evening, met executive session voted acceding exception share." negotiating following morning, accepted 14, 7 (1) 8 1972, (WERC) claimed doing engaged representative, §§ 111.70(3)(a)1, (1973).4 Following hearing "immediately employes, representatives Teachers Inc., Inc." Commission's action affirmed Circuit Dane County. 9 affirmed. 206. court recognized both Federal Constitutions protect freedom right government, noted rights abridged face " 'a clear (the speech) will bring substantive evils legislature) prevent.' Id., 211, N.W.2d, 212, citing Schenck v. United States, 249 47, 39 247, 63 L.Ed. 470 (1919). held case Wis.2d, 213. 10 (2) 11 perceived "clear danger" based conclusion Permitting "negotiation," reasoned, undermine exclusivity guaranteed majority 111.70(3)(a)4 From premise limited. Assuming, arguendo, "danger" might some limitation rights, unable record 12 Court's adoption lower court's determination that, '(e)ven though superficially appears "position statement," deems total negotiating." ' This cryptic seems ignore ancient wisdom thing name so.5 did seek offer nor behalf. 13 permitted public.6 "compelled relinquish they otherwise enjoy citizens comment interest connection work." Pickering 391 563, 568, 88 1731, 1734, 20 811 (1968). See Keyishian Regents, 385 589, 87 675, 17 629 (1967); Shelton Tucker, 364 479, 81 (1960); Wieman Updegraff, 344 183, 73 215, 216 (1952). difficult find justification excluding vitally proceedings.7 It conceded precisely points provided information Holmquist. 14 Regardless extent true body regulated need consider time cannot confined category interested individuals.8 To debatable monopoly government antithesis constitutional guarantees.9 Police Dept. Chicago Mosley, 408 92, 96, 92 2286, 2290, 33 212 (1972).10 15 (3) 16 limited taken place past; restrains conduct. By prohibiting "permitting employes . Education" constitutes indirect, effective, prohibition persons substantial impact virtually communication prohibits "on bargaining."11 As dissenting below noted, however, system characterized potential constitute bulk system, very core system; restraining seriously impair ability district. reliance Broadrick Oklahoma, 413 601, 93 2908, 37 830 (1973), proposition whose falls squarely within valid proscription challenge grounds vagueness, inapposite. challenged future, essence restraint. judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings inconsistent opinion. 18 Reversed 19 STEWART, concurring judgment. city acting accordance state law, invited attend agenda included desirability agency-shop arrangement. entirely willing Holmquist, speaking community, subject. seek, time, reach mere matter bargaining, poses genuine threat policy representation adopted. I therefore agree entered unconstitutionally restricts 21 BRENNAN's reaffirms Holmes' observation "(t)he Constitution acts done town assembly whole." Bi-Metallic Investment Co. Equalization, 239 441, 445, 36 141, 142, 60 372. A decisions private broad authority structure chooses public. Such surely limiting subjects believes illuminated others trying best serve needs rationing should suppose selected individuals example, experts consideration opinions. write emphasize what limitations governmental body's meetings. 22 BRENNAN, MARSHALL joins, 23 stating "the (is) time," ante, 175, treats answer think abundantly clear. adopted, unquestionably adopt, statutory authorizes bodies accord recognition chosen appropriate employees. circumstance plainly attendance denying session. That implicit words Holmes, "Constitution 372 (1915). Certainly context Wisconsin's principle governing unions employees, "(t)here must limit individual argument go on." Ibid. For command "that people want (voice) whenever however wherever please." Adderley Florida, 39, 48, 242, 246, 149 (1966). "own conferences (and) official gathered session" closed without implicating whatever. Branzburg Hayes, 665, 684, 2646, 2658, 626 (1972). Thus, correct nothing unconstitutional legislation commanding sessions admit, of, respond designated 24 But plays crucially different role when, here, either own command, determined decisionmaking processes view participation.* case, created dedicated "Once groups, assembling intend say. Selective exclusions alone, reference alone." sustained obviously contravenes principle. complete absence evidence part aid unfair commands "shall (union) (board) Obedience requires regardless circumstances, allow 66.77(1) now 19.81(1) (1976), generally subjects, even conform procedural rules, "public" open. wholly void. prevent publishing newspaper proclaiming soapbox. 25 reversed. certified June 7, 1966, Commission. text follows: "December "To: Incorporated "We undersigned fair-share (agency shop) negotiated deferred year. propose following: "1) concept thoroughly studied composed groups. "2) findings study made "3) ballot (written) affected "4) written public." statute provides relevant part: "(3) Prohibited practices prevention. individually concert others: "1. interfere with, restrain coerce exercise sub. (2). "4. collectively unit. refusal shall include obtain contracts, including statute, mediation fact-finding terms conditions new progress, unless contracts contain language providing amendment subsequent agreement." courts certain "negotiating" standing ordinarily our review; use predicate opens review here. pursuant hold (1976). There exceptions interpreted cover municipality organization. 54 Op.Atty.Gen. Wis. vi (1965), cited approval, School Directors Comm'n, 42 637, 653, 168 99-100 (1969). contrast where invited, conducted private. decide corporation enough protected communicate Since "inextricably meshed" speak, assert behalf Procunier Martinez, 416 396, 409, 94 1800, 1809, 40 224 (1974). Plainly, confine specified nonpublic transact business. n. supra. Union continue entitled come known. rule underscored rely position known board; can sessions. Surely absolute consult themselves, reduce writing, pamphlets, letters, carried news media. strain concepts extraordinarily dissident directly charged making choices raised demands. Counsel oral overbroad, asked narrow function undertake task. On hand, "simply community." contrary, p. 171, supra, schools." appeared exercising rights. * authorities collected Brief AFL-CIO Amicus Curiae 20-24.

Category: 2