Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. City of Milwaukee
Citation | 285 N.W.2d 133,92 Wis.2d 175 |
Decision Date | 06 November 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 77-116,77-116 |
Parties | MILWAUKEE POLICE ASSOCIATION, formerly the Professional Policemen's Protective Association, and Rosalie Valdes, Appellants, v. CITY OF MILWAUKEE, a municipal corporation, and Harold A. Breier, chief of police, Respondents. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Wisconsin |
The Milwaukee Police Association and Rosalie Valdes, a police officer in the Milwaukee police department, plaintiffs-appellants, appeal from an order granting the motion of the City of Milwaukee and its Chief of Police, Harold A. Breier, respondents, to dismiss the action on its merits.
Kenneth J. Murray, Milwaukee, atty., argued for appellants; and Laurie Ann Eggert, of counsel.
John F. Kitzke, Asst. City Atty., argued, for respondents; James B. Brennan, City Atty., on brief.
The Milwaukee Police Association filed a grievance on behalf of Rosalie Valdes against the City of Milwaukee and its Chief of Police alleging that Officer Valdes was improperly denied the opportunity to work on a particular day and requesting reinstatement of pay. This grievance was denied and the matter went to arbitration.
There is no material issue of fact. Officer Valdes usually worked days and reported to work at the Youth Aid Bureau. Her working schedule was revised for two days in October, 1975, so that she could guard a female prisoner temporarily admitted to Milwaukee County Hospital pending the prisoner's court appearance. This assignment required the officer's presence at the hospital from 4 p. m. until 12 midnight. Her usual work assignment was from 8 a. m. until 4 p. m.
The factual situation which presents the issue in the case relates to the work assignment on Saturday, October 25, 1975. At approximately 4 p. m. on Friday, Officer Valdes was notified of the possibility that the female prisoner might be taken to court on Saturday, which would obviate the need for her working the 4 p. m. to 12 midnight shift. She was given the opportunity to come to work at 8 a. m. on Saturday on an overtime basis, and to remain until it had been determined whether she would be needed at the hospital. Due to personal plans, she decided to report at 4 p. m., the previously scheduled reporting time for this special assignment. At about 1 p. m. on Saturday, she was notified that she would not be required to guard the female prisoner at the hospital. Therefore, she reported at the Youth Aid Bureau, her normal working location, at approximately 3:45 p. m. The Youth Aid Bureau normally closed at 4 p. m. on Saturdays, so she was not allowed to work. She had worked on Youth Aid Bureau activities after 4 p. m. on Saturdays in the past and had current assignments that she could have worked on. Also, she informed the sergeant that she was available to work on any assignment, but she was not assigned.
Schedule A of the agreement contained a section entitled "OVERTIME" which provided in part:
At the arbitration hearing, the City of Milwaukee challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to hear the matter, contending that the dispute was neither grievable nor arbitrable. A bench decision relative to the city's objection was requested and the arbitrator held that the matter was appropriately before him for determination on the merits. At that point, the representatives of the city physically withdrew from the proceedings, indicating an intention to ultimately take the matter to court under Chapter 227 of the Wisconsin statutes. The hearing was continued without the further participation of the city.
In making the ultimate award, the arbitrator recognized that the Chief of Police had wide discretion in scheduling employees for work, but that he had a duty to schedule work in a reasonable manner under the collective bargaining agreement. Reviewing the evidence, the arbitrator held that the city did not exercise its work scheduling discretion in a reasonable manner under the terms of the agreement.
The arbitrator awarded that:
The Milwaukee Police Association and Rosalie Valdes later filed a motion in circuit court to confirm the award of the arbitrator. The City of Milwaukee and the Chief of Police responded by filing a motion to dismiss the action on the ground that the action failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Subsequently, a check in the amount of one day's pay was issued to Rosalie Valdes and was mailed to her home by first class mail.
The motions came on for hearing and the trial court held that sec. 298.05, Stats., 1 gave it the authority to hear the motion to dismiss, and held that the issue was moot if the award had been paid and the court could not make decisions on moot issues. An order was thereupon entered dismissing the action on its merits.
The Milwaukee Police Association and Rosalie Valdes bring this appeal which, in our opinion, presents the following issues:
1. Must the circuit court confirm an arbitration award upon the motion of a party brought pursuant to sec. 298.09, Stats., when no motion to vacate or modify is brought pursuant to sec. 298.10 or sec. 298.11?
2. Is the issue presented by an application for confirmation of an arbitrator's award pursuant to sec. 298.09, Stats., mooted by payment of the amount specified in the award as the remedy?
Appellants first contend that the circuit court had no jurisdiction to entertain a motion to dismiss the application for confirmation of the arbitration award, but was required to confirm the award under sec. 298.09, Stats., since no motion to vacate, modify or correct the award had been brought.
Section 298.09, Stats., provides:
No motion to vacate, modify or correct the award was made by respondents. The only motion respondents made was a motion to dismiss. Thus, the posture of this case required that the circuit court confirm the award.
Wis. Environmental Decade v. Public Service Comm., 81 Wis.2d 344, 350, 260 N.W.2d 712, 715 (1978).
The language of sec. 298.09, Stats., is clear. Upon an application for an order confirming an arbitration award, "the court Must grant such an order unless the award is vacated, modified or corrected . . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) The word "must" in a statute is mandatory. State ex rel. Milwaukee Northern R. Co. v. Delaney, 166 Wis. 141, 144, 164 N.W. 825 (1917). Thus, in the absence of a motion to vacate, modify or correct, the circuit court had no choice but to confirm the award.
Furthermore, regardless of how the motion of the respondents is denominated, mootness is not one of the grounds upon which a circuit court must vacate or modify an award under sec. 298.10 or sec. 298.11, Stats.
Section 298.10, Stats., provides:
Section 298.11, Stats., provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Moncharsh v. Heily & Blase
... ... 1, 710 P.2d 833 [dis. opn. of Lucas, J.]; City of Oakland v. United Public Employees (1986) 179 Cal.App.3d ... 478; Ray Wilson Co. v. Anaheim Memorial Hospital Assn. (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 1081, 1091, 213 Cal.Rptr. 62; ... Fake (Utah 1987) 740 P.2d 1327, 1329; Milwaukee Police Asso. v. City of Milwaukee (1979) 92 Wis.2d 175, ... ...
- Milwaukee Police Ass'n v. City of Milwaukee, 77-115
-
J.F. Ahern Co. v. Wisconsin State Bldg. Com'n
... ... Milwaukee Police Asso. v. Milwaukee, 92 Wis.2d 175, 183, 285 N.W.2d ... See In re City of Beloit, 37 Wis.2d 637, 644, 155 N.W.2d 633, 636 (1968) ... ...
-
Milwaukee Brewers v. Dept. of Health & Social Services
... ... defines a 'new metropolitan correctional institution' as 'any correctional institution in a city having a population of 500,000 or more the site for which is designated by the legislature by ... Milwaukee Police Asso. v. Milwaukee, 92 Wis.2d 175, 183, 285 N.W.2d 133, 137 (1979). An appellate court will ... ...