Court Opinion

ID: 9665414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:48:18.327243+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:15.686264
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam
(on motion for rehea/ring). On Page 460 of our original opinion, it is stated that:
“The defendant, subject to sec. 118.22, Stats., was empowered to relieve the plaintiff of his coaching assignment without prior notice and the requirement of a common-law hearing. To the extent that the master agreement purports to limit this power, it is void.”
This language is withdrawn and in its place the following substituted:
Adamczyk, swpra, involved a personal employment contract rather than a collective bargaining agreement enacted in accordance with sec. 111.70, Stats.: “The Municipal Employment Relations Act.” Prior to 1971, *460bmunicipal employers did not have to bargain collectively with employee unions. La Crosse County Institution Employees v. WERC (1971), 52 Wis. 2d 295, 190 N. W. 2d 204. However, sec. 111.70 (1) (d) was created by ch. 124, sec. 2, Laws of 1971.
In material part, sec. 111.70 (1) (d), Stats., provides:
“ ‘Collective bargaining’ means the performance of the mutual obligation of a municipal employer, through its officers and agents, and the representatives of its employees, to meet and confer at reasonable times, in good faith with respect to wages, hours and conditions of employment with the intention of reaching an agreement, or to resolve questions arising under such an agreement.” (Emphasis added.)
Under the act, a school district is considered to be a “municipal employer,” sec. 111.70 (1) (a), Stats., and this court has no difficulty in concluding that a grievance procedure established by a collective bargaining agreement, and relating to dismissals falls within the embrace of “wages, hours and conditions of employment,” and that the conditions of such an agreement are binding on the parties. See our opinion in Local 1226 v. Rhinelander (1967), 35 Wis. 2d 209, 151 N. W. 2d 30.
This court is also of the opinion, however, that “dismissal” as that word is used in the master agreement means to remove from employment and not the failure to “renew” plaintiff’s one-year contract under the same terms as it had contained before. We do not at this time render an opinion as to whether the failure to renew a co-curricular assignment could also be made subject to a grievance procedure under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement.
Motion for rehearing denied without costs.