Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers v. Wis. Employment Relations Bd.

• Decision Date: 10 October 1944
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 953, A. F. OF L., v. WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

245 Wis. 532

15 N.W.2d 823

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, LOCAL NO. 953, A. F. OF L.,

v.WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD et al.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 10, 1944.

Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Dane County; August C. Hoppmann, Judge.

Action by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 953, A. F. of L., against Wisconsin Employment Relations Board and others to set aside an order of defendant board reinstating certain defendants as employees of defendant Northern States Power Company. From a judgment affirming the order of the board, plaintiffs appeal.-[By Editorial Staff.]

Affirmed.This action was begun on the 12th day of October, 1942, by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local No. 953, A. F. of L., to set aside an order made by the defendant, Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, reinstating the defendants, Clarence Raether, Adolph G. Gort, George E. Ruhe and Ambrose M. Ruhe, as employees of the defendant, Northern States Power Company. Upon the hearing, the court affirmed the order of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, hereinafter called the Board.

There is no dispute upon the facts of this case, which may be briefly stated as follows:

The Northern States Power Company, the employer, is a Wisconsin corporation with its principal office at Eau Claire, Wisconsin. It is a public utility and serves consumers in Wisconsin and Minnesota. About one-third of the electricity is sold in Minnesota and two-thirds in Wisconsin. Of the employees who are covered by an all-union agreement, about twenty per cent work in Minnesota and 80% in Wisconsin.

In June, 1942, the employer discharged four employees because of non-union membership under the claim that such discharges were ordered in compliance with a union contract then existing between it and the employees. After the discharges, the respondents, Raether, Gort and the Ruhes, complained to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board charging that the plaintiff and the employer had engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of sec. 111.06(1)(c), Wisconsin stats. The jurisdiction of the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board was challenged by the plaintiff and the employer. On September 11, 1942, the Board entered an order by the terms of which the company was ordered (1) to cease and desist from.

A. Encouraging membership in the union or any other labor organization by discrimination in the hiring or tenure of employment of any of its employees.

B. Recognizing, adhering to or giving any effect whatsoever to the collective bargaining agreement with the union.

(2) It requires the employer to reinstate the discharged employees and to compensate the discharged employees for loss of earnings.

Prior to the hearing and order above referred to and on September 15, 1941, the employer had filed a petition with the National Labor Relations Board wherein it had set out the facts heretofore stated and asked that the National Labor Relations Board act in the premises under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq. The petition was dismissed by order dated December 29, 1941.

It further appears that on the 16th day of August, 1941, the State Board made and entered an order directing that an election by separate ballot be conducted among the employees of the Eau Claire plant of the company for the purpose of determining whether or not the majority of such employees desired to establish themselves as a separate unit for the purpose of collective bargaining.

In the course of the findings upon which the order of dismissal was based, the National Board found that

‘Under the circumstances, we consider a unit composed of all production, maintenance, and distribution employees of the entire system of the Company to be appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining. * * *

‘As noted above, we consider the system-wide unit appropriate, under the circumstances, for the purposes of collective bargaining. Since District 50 has not asserted any interest in the larger unit hereinabove found appropriate, and since the Company has recognized the I.B.E.W. as the exclusive representative of its employees in that unit, we are of the opinion, and find, that no question concerning the representation of employees of the Company has arisen. We shall, accordingly, dismiss the Company's petition for an investigation and certification of representatives.

‘Upon the basis of the above findings of fact and upon the entire record in the case, the Board makes the following:

‘Conclusions of Law.

‘No question concerning the representation of employees of Northern States Power Company, Eau Claire, Wisconsin, has arisen within the meaning of Section 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act.

‘Order.

‘Upon the basis of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusion of law, the National Labor Relations Board hereby dismisses the petition for an investigation and certification of representatives filed by Northern States Power Company of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, Wisconsin.’

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

John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., James Ward Rector, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Beatrice Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.

ROSENBERRY, Chief Justice.

Two contentions are made upon this appeal: (1st) That the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act does not apply to an employer having employees both inside and outside of the state; (2d) That the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board loses its power to find that the company has engaged in unfair labor practices after the Board has recognized the appropriateness of the unit found by the National Labor Relations Board.

1. Plaintiff's argument in support of its contention that the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act, ch. 111, Stats.1941, does not apply to an employer having employees both within and without the state is based mainly upon certain definitions to be found in the act. For instance, sec. 111.02 (3) defines the term ‘employee’ as ‘any person, other than an independent contractor, working for another for hire in the state of Wisconsin.’ Attention is directed to a number of other paragraphs where the same language or language of similar import is used. Upon the basis of these definitions it is argued that where an employer has employees, part of whom reside in the state and part of whom reside without the state, the state has no jurisdiction, it is considered that this position is not well taken. It is elementary law that the statutes of a state do not run beyond its boundaries. In this case, as in many other cases, the State Board was dealing with a resident employer and resident employees under a claim that the employer had violated a state law. This was a matter clearly within the jurisdiction of the State Board.

2. The contention of the plaintiff that the recognition of the appropriateness of I.B.E.W. as the bargaining representative of the employees of the company, ousts the state board of jurisdiction in this matter, cannot be upheld. This contention raises a question which involves a great deal of difficulty. We have considered phases of it in three former cases. The first case was Wisconsin Labor Relations Board v. Fred Rueping Leather Co., 1938, 228 Wis. 473, 279 N.W. 673, 117 A.L.R. 398. It was there said that the power of the state to subject labor relations to regulation is based on its police power, while the power of the federal government to deal with labor disputes which so proximately obstruct and burden interstate commerce as to bring labor relations in such industries within the power of congress, stems from the interstate commerce clause of the federal constitution.

This case is argued as if the National Labor Relations Board had entertained and proceeded under sec. 9(c) of the National Labor Relations Act and...