Court Opinion

ID: 9693052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:17:43.200486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:39.264249
License: Public Domain

MOSER, J.
(dissenting in part, concurring in part). I respectfully dissent in part from the majority’s opinion. They have swallowed a totally illogical argument leading to a preposterous result. They hold that a union anti-raid contract provision requiring a disaffiliating local to tender its monies and property to the AFSCME international union is void as against public policy. The majority claims the public policy violated by this contractual provision is found in the prohibited practices part of the Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA), namely sec. 111.70(3)(a), (b) and (c), Stats.
The majority completely misreads the prohibited practice section of MERA. The proscribed practices *539under that statutory scheme are governmental actions of any kind to prevent municipal employees from the formation of or continuum of union collective bargaining measures. I submit nothing the respondents did was accomplished on behalf of Waukesha County Technical Institute in any anti-union activity or to influence the outcome of any controversy as to employment relations, by any act prohibited by paragraphs (a) and (b) of sec. 111.70(3), Stats.
What the majority has done in being led into misreading the above statute is to destroy an otherwise proper intra-union, anti-raid contractual provision.
I would affirm that part of the trial court’s judgment upholding the anti-raid provisions, but I agree with that part of the majority’s decision holding that there was no abuse of process by AFSCME officials and therefore would reverse the trial court’s decision in that respect.