Service Employees International Union Healthcare Wisconsin v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission
2025 WI 29
| Wis. | 2025Background
- The University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority (the Authority) was established in 1995 as a public corporation, and the legislature expressly required it to engage in collective bargaining under the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act (Peace Act).
- In 2011, Wisconsin Act 10 repealed statutory provisions that made the Authority a covered employer under the Peace Act and removed its collective bargaining obligations.
- After existing contracts expired post-Act 10, the Authority stopped collective bargaining with its employees, despite employee requests to recognize SEIU as their bargaining agent.
- SEIU and the Authority entered a Memorandum of Understanding to avoid a strike and jointly petitioned the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) to determine whether the Authority remained subject to collective bargaining under the Peace Act.
- WERC ruled the Authority was no longer required to bargain collectively; this decision was affirmed by the circuit court and ultimately reviewed by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Act 10 eliminated the Authority’s duty to collectively bargain under the Peace Act | SEIU argued the Authority still qualifies as an "employer" under the Peace Act’s general definition and thus must bargain. | WERC/Authority contended Act 10’s explicit removals from the statute show intent to eliminate collective bargaining duties for the Authority. | The court held Act 10 clearly eliminated the Authority's Peace Act collective bargaining requirements. |
| Role of statutory history in interpreting the Peace Act's definition of "employer" | SEIU argued statutory history should be considered only if text is ambiguous. | WERC/Authority argued statutory history is intrinsic and always relevant to plain-meaning analysis. | The court reaffirmed statutory history as an intrinsic source, always part of plain-meaning analysis. |
| Whether the Authority fits the Peace Act definition of “employer” absent explicit inclusion | SEIU claimed as a public body corporate and politic, the Authority is a "person” under the Act. | WERC/Authority contended that only explicit inclusion in 1995 made the Authority a Peace Act "employer," and removal means it is no longer covered. | The court held the Authority was only covered by explicit inclusion, and its removal is dispositive. |
| Is express statutory exclusion necessary to remove Authority from the Peace Act | SEIU argued continued inclusion unless specifically excluded. | WERC/Authority cited legislative removal as sufficient to show exclusion. | The court held legislative removal sufficed to end Peace Act coverage. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane Cnty., 271 Wis. 2d 633 (2004) (establishing Wisconsin’s approach to statutory interpretation focusing on text, context, and statutory history)
- Rouse v. Theda Clark Medical Center, Inc., 302 Wis. 2d 358 (2007) (defining the Authority as a "political corporation")
- Banuelos v. University of Wisconsin Hospitals & Clinics Authority, 406 Wis. 2d 439 (2023) (statutory history as an intrinsic source in statutory interpretation)
- Richards v. Badger Mutual Insurance Co., 309 Wis. 2d 541 (2008) (role of statutory history in discerning statutory meaning)
- Brey v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Insurance Co., 400 Wis. 2d 417 (2022) (affirming the use of statutory context and history in plain-meaning analysis)