Court Opinion

ID: 9687952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:54:57.9709+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:33.674895
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
(dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from that part of the majority opinion which holds that the decision to replace the cucumber hand-picking operation with mechanical harvesters was not bargain-able. I interpret Fibreboard 1 differently than the majority, as requiring bargaining of a decision, as here, which certainly and directly has an impact on job security without contemplating the complete termination of business.2 The decision here was to discontinue the handpicking work but to replace that operation with mechanized harvesting. The harvesting was continued; only the method was completely changed. The decision did not affect other parts of the cucumber processing work.
The WERC reached a conclusion of law in determining that the decision to mechanize the 1968 cucumber harvesting dealt with terms and conditions of employment of many seasonal workers. I think that this conclusion is a reasonable application of the statute and that this application should be accepted by this court. To bargain does not mean that the employer is surrendering his final right to make the mechanization decision. All that is required is that he give the union a chance to persuade the employer that, as the WERC noted in its opinion supporting its order, “[T] here are reasonable and economical alternatives to the contemplated change in operation.”
I have been authorized to state that Mr. Justice Hef-PERNAN joins in this dissenting opinion.

 Fibreboard Corp. v. Labor Board (1964), 379 U. S. 203, 85 Sup. Ct. 398, 13 L. Ed. 2d 233.

 UAW Local 577 v. Hamilton Beach Mfg. Co. (1968), 40 Wis. 2d 270, 162 N. W. 2d 16.