Browne v. Milwaukee Bd. of School Directors, 77-318
| Decision Date | 30 June 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 77-318,77-318 |
| Citation | 83 Wis.2d 316,267 N.W.2d 379 |
| Parties | , 99 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2284 Phyllis Ann BROWNE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The MILWAUKEE BOARD OF SCHOOL DIRECTORS et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
On their motion for rehearing the plaintiffs contend that the proceedings in the circuit court must be stayed pending W.E.R.C.'s factual determination or they will be prejudiced by the inability of W.E.R.C. to hear class actions. Sec. 111.07(2)(a), Stats. (1975). 1 A stay in the trial court pending administrative proceedings is proper where necessary to avoid possible prejudice to one of the parties. United States v. Michigan National Corp., 419 U.S. 1, 95 S.Ct. 10, 42 L.Ed.2d 1 (1974).
In this case, as in all cases where questions of primary jurisdiction occur, both the trial court and the administrative agency have concurrent jurisdiction. Browne v. Milwaukee Bd. of School Directors, 69 Wis.2d 169, 175, 230 N.W.2d 704 (1975). The trial court may therefore retain jurisdiction until W.E.R.C. makes its factual determination concerning fair share dues. The plaintiffs' claims may be maintained before W.E.R.C. in the form of the class action that has already been commenced in the circuit court.
When W.E.R.C. has determined all issues before it, both W.E.R.C. and the trial court will be precluded from any further action. The trial court may not retain jurisdiction of this case for purposes of ch. 227 review of W.E.R.C.'s decision.
The motion for rehearing is denied.
1 The plaintiffs also contend that they will be prejudiced by the one year statute of limitations applicable to prohibited labor practices. Sec. 111.07(14), Stats. (1975). We disagree. The plaintiffs' present complaint before the circuit court properly alleges an unfair labor practice as that term has been defined by this court's opinion in this case.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wisconsin Ass'n of Food Dealers v. City of Madison
...Wis.2d 292, 309, 234 N.W.2d 289 (1975). See also: Browne v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 83 Wis.2d 316, 336, 265 N.W.2d 559, 267 N.W.2d 379 (1978). As the court of appeals noted, "(t)he significance of the matter covered by the ordinance is beyond dispute. If an injunction is not gr......
-
Robinson v. State of NJ
...See White Cloud Educ. Ass'n v. White Cloud Bd. of Educ., 101 Mich.App. 309 300 N.W.2d 551 (1980); Browne v. Milwaukee Bd. of School Directors, 83 Wis.2d 316, 335-340 267 N.W.2d 379 (1978). Id., 431 N.E.2d at The Court further held that as a matter of statutory interpretation the Massachuset......
-
Haag v. Hogue
...plaintiffs seek to engraft upon the statute would amount to just such a forbidden injunction (see Browne v. Milwaukee Bd. of School Directors, supra, 83 Wis.2d 316, at 335-340a, 267 N.W.2d 379). Decisions which have imposed an escrow requirement are either distinguishable from this case or,......
-
Chibardun Telephone Cooperative, Inc. v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., No. 2007AP1589 (Wis. App. 4/10/2008)
...that it lost jurisdiction over the case under Browne v. Milwaukee Board of School Directors, 83 Wis. 2d 316, 265 N.W.2d 559, 267 N.W.2d 379 (1978), after the Public Service Commission issued a decision in a separate but closely related proceeding before the PSC. We conclude that Browne, whe......