Local 321, International Ass'n of Fire Fighters v. City of Racine
841 N.W.2d 830
Wis. Ct. App.2013Background
- In late 2010/early 2011 the City of Racine and five unions ratified two successive CBAs at the same time: one for 2011–12 (in effect) and one for 2013–14 (piggybacked and executed but performance began later).
- In March–June 2011 the Legislature enacted 2011 Wis. Acts 10 and 32, which substantially limited public-sector collective bargaining and imposed fiscal constraints on municipalities.
- Acts 10 and 32 provide that, for employees "covered by" a collective bargaining agreement, the acts "first apply" when that agreement "expires or is terminated, extended, modified, or renewed, whichever occurs first."
- Racine rescinded the 2013–14 CBAs (in full as to general employees; in part as to public safety units) citing Acts 10 and 32; the unions sued seeking reinstatement.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for the unions; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the 2013–14 CBAs remained enforceable because employees were "covered by" those agreements when the acts took effect and the statutes do not clearly require retroactive application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Unions) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Acts 10 and 32 apply to CBAs executed before the acts but with later performance (piggybacked 2013–14 CBAs) | The 2013–14 CBAs "covered" employees once executed; Acts 10/32 do not apply until those agreements expire or are modified | Because the 2013–14 CBAs were not "in effect" when the acts were passed, employees were not "covered by" them and the acts can be applied to rescind or modify those CBAs | Held for unions: "covered by" includes executed CBAs that take effect later; Acts 10/32 do not apply until those CBAs end or are modified, so 2013–14 CBAs remain enforceable |
| Whether applying Acts 10/32 to the 2013–14 CBAs would be retroactive and thus disfavored without clear legislative intent | The legislature did not clearly express an intent to apply the acts retroactively to upset settled contractual rights | The acts were meant to achieve fiscal savings "as soon as possible," implying immediate application where feasible | Held for unions: presumption against retroactivity controls; statutes lack clear language to reach piggybacked, already-executed CBAs, so retroactive application is not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (statutory interpretation begins with statutory text; plain meaning controls)
- Roth v. City of Glendale, 237 Wis. 2d 173 (contract interpretation objective: ascertain parties' intent)
- Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Smith, 154 Wis. 2d 199 (presumption against retroactive legislation; retroactivity requires clear legislative intent)
- Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (retroactive law attaches new legal consequences to completed events; presumption against retroactivity)
- Hoffman v. WERC, 243 Wis. 2d 1 (piggybacked successive CBAs are separate contracts)
- Ferraro v. Koelsch, 124 Wis. 2d 154 (exchange of promises creates enforceable contract)