Joint School Dist. No. 1, City of Wisconsin Rapids v. Wisconsin Rapids Educ. Ass'n

• Citation: 234 N.W.2d 289,70 Wis.2d 292
• Decision Date: 28 October 1975
• Docket Number: No. 116,116
• Parties: , 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3225 JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 1, CITY OF WISCONSIN RAPIDS, et al., Respondents, v. WISCONSIN RAPIDS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants. (1974).
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin

Page 289

234 N.W.2d 289

70 Wis.2d 292, 90 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3225

JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NUMBER 1, CITY OF WISCONSIN RAPIDS, et al., Respondents, v. WISCONSIN RAPIDS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants.

No. 116 (1974).

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Oct. 28, 1975.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 13, 1976.

This case involves a municipal employees' strike, a temporary injunction to testrain it, a continuation of the strike, a finding of contempt and the imposition of fines.

Although negotiations for the calendar year 1974 had continued intermittently for several months through collective bargaining, an agreement had not been reached by January 1, 1974. The negotiations were carried on by representatives of the Wisconsin Rapids Education Association, the duly certified bargaining agent for all contract teaching employees, guidance personnel, librarians, special teachers and teaching principals, and the Board of Education of Joint School District Number 1 of the City of Wisconsin Rapids and several adjacent townships.

On January 1, 1974, the teachers' association voted to strike. There were approximately 350 teachers in the district. On January 2d, a day regularly scheduled for classes, in response to the strike vote, a majority of the teachers failed to report for work. The board closed all schools in the district because of an inadequate number of teachers to conduct classes in any meaningful manner.

The board of education, in its own name and as representative of the district, then issued a complaint against the teachers' association and its officers and members bemanding a temporary and permanent injunction. This complaint and an order to show cause for the issuance of a temporary injunction were filed in the circuit court for Wood county on January 4, 1974. In its complaint, the board alleged that a strike had been initiated by defendants, that the strike was illegal, and that, as a result, it could not operate the school system. The board further alleged taht the citizens and taxpayers in the district were suffering irreparable harm as a result of the illegal strike and that there existed no adequate remedy at law. In its prayer for judgment, the board requested that an order be issued permanently restraining and enjoining the defendants from continuing the strike and related activities.

In response to a motion by attorneys for the board upon filing the complaint, Circuit Judge James H. Levi ordered defendants to show cause way a temporary injunction and restraining order should not be granted pending disposition of the action. The hearing on that order was held on January 7, 1974. On the same day the defendants filed their answer to the board's complaint. In the answer the defendants admitted that a strike had been called and was in progress and picket lines set up, but denied that the board and citizens of the district had suffered irreparable harm as a result or that no adequate remedy at law was available. The defendants prayed that the request for injunctive relief be denied and that the complaint be dismissed.

Following the hearing on the order or show cause, the circuit court issued an order (to be effective at 6:45 a.m., on January 8, 1974) temporarily enjoining and restraining defendants from continuing the strike and related activities. The striking and picketing by the defendants nevertheless continued on January 8 and no classes were held on that day. The plaintiff and defendants both secured orders to show cause why the other should not be found in contempt for failing to comply with the order for temporary injunction. The hearing on those orders was scheduled for January 11, but was postponed to January 14.

At the start of the January 14 hearing, counsel for the defendants made several motions. They first moved to amend their answer to deny rether than admit the allegation in the complaint that the board of education was a body corporate and municipal employer, and to allege as an affirmative defense that the action should be dismissed for want of a proper party-plaintiff. This motion was granted. The court also granted the board leave to amend the complaint to respond to the amendments to the answer. The defendants also moved to quash the order to show cause brought on by the board and to set aside the January 7 order for temporary injunction on the ground that the board, purporting to act as plaintiff, had no standing or capacity to do so. The court reserved ruling on these motions.

The defendants then requested a jury trial on the issue of whether the order for temporary injunction had been violated. This request was denied and the court proceeded to here evidence on the orders to show cause for contempt. Following the hearing, the court directed that the order to show cause brought on by the defendants against the board be dismissed, found the defendants in contempt, and ordered that each striking member of the association be fined and the fines be deducted from their salaries. The total fine was $10 a day per teacher for eight days. Fines were ordered to be deducted from the salaries of 317 teachers.

By motion filed January 29, 1974, the defendants requested that the contempt fines be remitted. A hearing on this motion was held on February 18. At that hearing it was noted by counsel for plaintiff that an amended summons and complaint had been filed which joined the school district as a party plaintiff. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to further amend the complaint to join as an additional party plaintiff the City of Wisconsin Rapids.

Following arguments by counsel for both sides, the court denied defendants' request that the fines imposed by the order of January 14 be remitted. The court also considered the motions mode by defendants at the January 14 hearing that the order to show cause as to contempt brought on by the board and the January 7 order for temporary injunction be set aside. Both motions were denied on the grounds that furisdictional defects had been waived by defendants and that the summons and complaint had been amended to join additional party plaintiffs pursuant to proper motion by plaintiff. The court ordered that the fines be deducted from the teachers' salaries and paid to the clerk of courts for the benefit of the state school fund.

By motion filed March 1, 1974, defendants requested that the order of February 18 be stayed. On March 4, the court ordered that the clerk of courts receive the fines and retain them until further order to allow defendants time within which to determine whether to appeal the February 18 order. On March 21, the clerk was ordered by the court to forward the money to the state treasurer for the school fund.

The defendants appeal from the following orders: (1) The order of January 7, 1974, granting a temporary injunction and restraining defendants from striking; (2) the order of January 14, 1974, dismissing an order to show cause why the board of education should not be found in contempt of court, finding the defendants in contempt of court and ordering that fines be deducted from their salaries; (3) the order of February 18, 1974, denying the defendants' request for remission of the contempt fines and ordering that the fines be deducted from the individual defendants' March 1 and 15 paychecks; and (4) the order of March 4, 1974, instructing the Wood county clerk of courts to receive the fine money deducted from the defendants' salaries.

Lawton & Cates, Modison, for appellants.

Chambers, Nash, Pierce & Podvin, Wisconsin Rapids, for respondents.

BEILFUSS, Justice.

The issues raised by the defendants are as follows:

1. Did the circuit court have jurisdiction to enter the orders?

2. Was the evidence sufficient to support the court's order for temporary injunetion?

3. Was the evidence sufficient to show that the individual defendants either knew of the injunction or personally violated it?

4. Were the individual defendants entitled to a jury trial on the contempt issue?

The original summons and complaint in this action were served and filed by the board of education in its own name. The order for temporary injunction and the order to show cause why the association should not be found in contempt for violation thereof were issued by the court while the board maintained the action in its own name only. At the January 14 hearing on the orders to show cause to contempt, the defendants were granted leave to amend their answer to deny the allegation in the complaint that the board was a body corporate and to allege as an affirmative defense that the action should be dismissed because the board did not have the capacity to maintain the suit. This allegation was admitted in the original answer. The board filed an amended summons and complaint in response to the defendants' amendments, joining the school district as a plaintiff, on February 1. On February 18, the complaint was further amended to join the City of Wisconsin Rapids.

In related motions at the contempt hearing, the defendants requested that the court set aside the order for temporary injunction and quash the order to show cause for contempt brought on by the board on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action because the board, acting as plaintiff, had no capacity to do so. In denying these motions the circuit court concluded that any jurisdictional defects were waived by the defendants' failure to raise them by demurrer or in the original answer. Further, the amended summons and complaint filed by the plaintiffs were held to have cured any defect which may have existed.

On appeal, the defendants contend that the injunction and contempt orders are void because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. They argue that since the board of education lacked capacity to sue, it had no standing to litigate, and there was therefore no 'case or controversy' before the court. The defendants contend that where no case or controversy...