Court Opinion

ID: 9710156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:03:15.780271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:54.675267
License: Public Domain

Hanley, J.

(concurring in part; dissenting in part).

I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the demurrer to the third cause of action relating to the alleged violation of the open meeting law was properly sustained.
I respectfully dissent to the majority’s ruling reversing the trial court’s granting of summary judgment on the first cause of action.
Sec. 111.70 (4) (1), Stats., provides as follows:
“Strikes prohibited. Nothing contained in this sub-chapter shall constitute a grant of the right to strike by any county or municipal employe and such strikes are hereby expressly prohibited.”
*507aThe above provision means exactly what it states. Therefore, the action of the teachers, acting in concert, in refusing to report for work cannot be sanctioned as a strike either by this court, the school district, the teachers’ union or the teachers. The action of the teachers constitutes a unilateral breach of employment.
On April 2, 1974, the board held a special meeting at which it adopted a resolution terminating the employment of the teachers who refused to report for work. Such action was an acceptance of the breach of contract by the teachers. With that acceptance, all employment relations between the board and the teachers terminated. Upon that termination any action on the part of the board relative to discharge was superfluous. There is no issue to be tried.
I would affirm the judgment.
I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Connor T. Hansen joins in this concurrence-dissent.
The following memorandum was filed March 28, 1975.