Mack v. Joint School Dist. No. 3, Village of Hales Corners, Cities of Greenfield and Franklin, Milwaukee County
Citation | 92 Wis.2d 476,285 N.W.2d 604 |
Decision Date | 15 January 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 77-104,77-104 |
Parties | , 105 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2888 Paulette MACK and Sharon Schermerhorn, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Debra Dobbs, Don Thompson, Linda Huber, Michael Cain, John Di Padova, Kay Hoff, Lynn Peck, Gail Hertig, Joan Kosobucki, Mike Buehler, William Donnelly and Audrey Kortes, Plaintiffs, v. JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3, VILLAGE OF HALES CORNERS, CITIES OF GREENFIELD AND FRANKLIN, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
Paulette Mack and Sharon Schermerhorn, plaintiffs-appellants, appeal from a judgment granting the motion of the Joint School District No. 3, Village of Hales Corners, Cities of Greenfield and Franklin, Milwaukee County, defendant-respondent, for summary judgment on its counterclaim asking for judgment declaring that the provisions of secs. 111.70, 118.22 and 118.23, Stats., permitted the School District to lay off teachers in accordance with the provisions of a layoff clause in the collective bargaining agreement between the School Board of the School District and the teachers' union. Appellants also appeal from an order denying their motion for a rehearing.
John S. Williamson, Jr., Milwaukee, argued, for appellants; Goldberg, Previant & Uelmen, S. C., Milwaukee, on briefs.
Michael R. Wherry, Mark F. Vetter, Milwaukee, argued, for respondent; Mulcahy & Wherry, S. C., Milwaukee, on brief.
On April 22, 1976, fourteen teachers, each a member of the Whitnall Area Education Association and each of whom was employed as a full time teacher for respondent Joint School District during the 1975-1976 school year, brought an action against respondent for the purpose of obtaining a declaratory judgment, declaring that their individual teacher's contracts were in full force and effect for the 1976-1977 school year. Plaintiffs also sought an order permanently directing respondent to specifically perform its contract with each plaintiff for the 1976-1977 school year.
Respondent filed an answer and counterclaim praying for judgment, declaring that secs. 111.70, 118.22 and 118.23, Stats., permitted respondent to lay off teachers in accordance with the provisions of Section 8.5 Layoff Clause in the 1975-1976 collective bargaining agreement between the School Board of respondent Joint School District and the Whitnall Area Education Association.
Both parties moved for summary judgment and the following facts appear in the pleadings and supporting affidavits.
In August, 1975, the School Board of respondent Joint School District No. 3 and the Whitnall Area Education Association entered into a collective bargaining agreement which became effective August 28, 1975, and was to remain in effect until August 26, 1976. Section 8.5 of this agreement was entitled "Layoff Clause" and provided:
At no time prior to March 1, 1976, did respondent inform any of the plaintiffs by preliminary notice in writing that respondent was considering nonrenewal of the teacher's contract of that plaintiff, and at no time prior to March 15, 1976, did respondent give any of the plaintiffs written notice of renewal or refusal to renew his/her contract for the ensuing year.
By letter dated March 10, 1976, respondent gave each plaintiff a notice of layoff effective with the close of the present school term, June 11, 1976. The notice stated the layoff was due to a substantial decrease in pupil population and was no reflection upon their abilities. It also advised them of their rights and benefits as set forth in Section 8.5 Layoff Clause in the master agreement.
On March 30, 1976, each plaintiff notified the Superintendent of the Whitnall Area Schools, by letter, of the acceptance of his/her individual continuing contract and employment with the Whitnall Area Schools for the 1976-1977 school year, pursuant to sec. 118.22, Stats.
On April 6, 1976, the Superintendent, by letter, advised the plaintiffs that the School Board, by its Notice of Layoff, had not sought to terminate their employment relationship with the School District, but that the purpose of the Notice of Layoff was to inform them that they would be considered in a layoff status during the 1976-1977 school year. The letter again informed each plaintiff that the notification of layoff was issued in accordance with the provisions in Section 8.5 Layoff Clause in the collective bargaining agreement.
The affidavit of the Superintendent, in support of the respondent's motion for summary judgment, details the decline in the student enrollment for a six-year period. This affidavit reflects a total decline of student population of 520 students of which 193 occurred in the 1975-1976 school year. It also estimates a further decline in student population for the 1976-1977 school year of 174 students.
No issue is made of the fact that these figures are inaccurate or that they do not represent a substantial decline in student population.
Subsequent to the commencement of this action, 12 of the 14 teachers were recalled from layoff status. The remaining plaintiffs are Paulette Mack and Sharon Schermerhorn.
In disposing of the motions for summary judgment, the trial court held that the collective bargaining agreement was to be construed in conjunction with sec. 118.22(2), Stats., and, as a result, Section 8.5 Layoff Clause of the collective bargaining agreement did not violate the provisions of sec. 118.22(2). The trial court also held that no board was restricted from hiring a teacher so laid off during any such layoff period. The trial court further pointed out that the plaintiffs had accepted the benefits of the collective bargaining agreement and, having accepted those benefits, the plaintiffs had in effect waived the right to assert that the provisions of sec. 118.22(2), Stats., were violated by the collective bargaining agreement.
Judgment was entered on February 28, 1977, declaring that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prosser v. Leuck
... ... The Barron County Circuit Court, Judge James C. Eaton presiding, 1 ... State ex rel. Badke v. Greendale Village Bd., 173 Wis.2d 553, 569, 494 N.W.2d 408 (1993) ... Stockbridge School Dist. v. DPI, 202 Wis.2d 214, 219, 550 N.W.2d 96 ... Milwaukee Co. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 82 Wis.2d 565, 570, 263 ... , 652, 305 N.W.2d 162 (Ct.App.1981) (citing Mack v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 3, Village of Hales ... ...
-
Hoffer Props., LLC v. State
...enacts a statute, it is presumed to act with full knowledge of the existing laws, including statutes." Mack v. Joint Sch. Dist. No. 3, 92 Wis.2d 476, 489, 285 N.W.2d 604 (1979). The freeway statute, Wis. Stat. § 84.295, states that "reasonable provision for public highway traffic service or......
- Wis. Local Gov't Prop. Ins. Fund v. Lexington Ins. Co.
-
Wis. Local Gov't Prop. Ins. Fund v. Lexington Ins. Co.
...parties agree to abide by those terms just as they agree to the other terms in the contract.") (citing Mack v. Joint School Dist., No. 3, 92 Wis. 2d 476, 492, 285 N.W.2d 604 (Wis. 1979); Barrons v. J.H. Findorff & Sons, Inc., 89 Wis. 2d 444, 452, 278 N.W.2d 827 (Wis.1979)). In that case, th......