Hotel & Rest. Employees' Int'l Alliance v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1941
• Parties: HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE, LOCAL No. 122, et al. v. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

236 Wis. 329

295 N.W. 634

HOTEL & RESTAURANT EMPLOYEES' INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE, LOCAL No. 122, et al.

v.WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Jan. 7, 1941.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; Gustave G. Gehrz, Judge.

On motion for rehearing.

Motion denied.

For prior opinion, see 294 N.W. 632.

Padway, Goldberg & Tarrell and David Previant, all of Milwaukee, for appellants.

John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., James Ward Rector, Deputy Atty. Gen., N. S. Boardman, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richardson, Robertson, Reeder & Stearns, of Milwaukee (Herman M. Knoeller, of Milwaukee, of counsel), for respondents.

ROSENBERRY, Chief Justice.

On motion for rehearing. On this motion appellants open their argument with the following statement:

“Since receipt of the Supreme Court's decision we have gone over it carefully and searchingly in order that we might have a clear and precise understanding of the basis for such decision.

“Only one thing was clear. That was that the Wisconsin Supreme Court, traditionally liberal and traditionally alert to protect the civil liberties of the citizens of this state, had placed its stamp of approval upon a statute, and an order based thereon, prohibiting minority groups from engaging in those rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. This for the sole reason that they were minority groups.”

What counsel refer to is their claim that the act which provides that what is denominated in the opinion , “an unauthorized strike”, that is, one not made pursuant to a majority vote of employees, is an unfair labor practice, deprives the minority group of a constitutional right to strike and infringes the right of free speech. It is almost futile to attempt to reply to a contention of this kind in the face of the provisions of the statute and the explicit language of the opinion. Counsel continue to misinterpret the statute and as a consequence, misunderstand the opinion.

Section 111.15 of the Employment Peace Act provides, among other things: “Except as specifically provided in this chapter, nothing therein shall be construed so as to interfere with or impede or diminish in any way the right to strike ***; nor shall anything in this chapter be so construed as to invade unlawfully the right to freedom of speech.”

The last sentence contained in the opinion is “Since we interpret the order of the board to be coextensive with the statute as construed, we find it unnecessary to modify the order or judgment.”

[1] It is explicitly stated in the opinion that the order of the Board, the judgment of the circuit court affirming it and the opinion of this Court did not deal with anything approaching peaceful picketing. We pointed out: “In this case it is undisputed that numerous assaults were committed by pickets, that the pickets acted in concert; that the fines of these pickets were paid by the unions; that ingress and egress to and from the premises of the employer were prevented by force and arms. It was at conduct of that kind that the statute was aimed. It is conduct of that kind that is dealt with in this case. It is conduct of that kind that is declared to be an unfair labor practice by the statute and from which the defendants are ordered to cease and desist. The statute does not even declare conduct of that kind to be unlawful, nor does it subject the offender to a criminal prosecution.”

How this can be tortured into a statement that minority groups are, by the order affirmed...