Wis. Emp't Relations Bd. v. Cullen
Decision Date | 01 July 1948 |
Citation | 253 Wis. 105,33 N.W.2d 182 |
Parties | WISCONSIN EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS BOARD v. J. P. CULLEN & SON. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Rock County; Jesse Earle, Judge.
Petition by Wisconsin Employment Relations Board for enforcement of an order entered by it against J. P. Cullen & son, a copartnership, for an unfair labor practice. From a summary judgment dismissing the petition, petitioner appeals. (By Editorial Staff.)
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
See also 33 N.W.2d 184.
Petition by the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, appellant, for enforcement of an order entered by it pursuant to sec. 111.07, Stats. against J. P. Cullen and Son, a copartnership, respondent, for an unfair labor practice. The court granted summary judgment dismissing the petition. The facts will be stated in the opinion.John E. Martin, Atty. Gen., Stewart G. Honeck, Deputy Atty. Gen., and Beatrice Lampert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellant.
McGowan, Geffs, Geffs & Block, of Janesville, for respondent.
Respondent as a construction contractor entered into a contract to dismantle quonset huts at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and convert them into living accommodations at two different sites at Marinette, Wisconsin, which work was to be completed between the months of August, 1946, and February, 1947. Clarence Allard was employed as a common laborer and later as a cement worker from August 26, 1946, to October 19, 1946, at which time his services were terminated. He applied to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, which will hereafter be referred to as the ‘board’, claiming the termination of his services was an unfair labor practice and the board found he was discharged because he refused to continue his membership in the union which constituted an unfair labor practice under the Wisconsin statutes. The board entered a cease and desist order and directed notices to be posted by respondent and the employee to be reimbursed for the loss of wages. Respondent failed to comply with the order of the board and the board petitioned the circuit court for Rock county for an enforcement order under sec. 111.07(7), Stats. Respondent filed an answer and a supplemental answer asking that the matter be returned to the board for the purpose of permitting it to adduce additional evidence on the merits of the controversy. Before this question had been determined respondent moved for summary judgment on the ground the board was without jurisdiction because the jurisdiction to govern the labor relations between respondent and its employees was in the United States government by virtue of the contract under which the work was being done, setting forth the contract in full in the affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted summary judgment setting aside the order of the board on the ground it was without jurisdiction. The board appeals.
A petition for an enforcement order is a review proceeding where the entire record of the proceedings before the board is filed with the court and notice is given to the party against whom the order is issued, which gives the court jurisdiction of the subject matter. When the action is brought on for hearing the court is confined to the record made before the board and it ‘may confirm, modify, and set aside the order of the board and enter an appropriate decree.’ Sec. 111.07(7), Stats. The contract was not introduced...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wisconsin's Environmental Decade, Inc. v. Public Service Commission
...School District v. State Appeal Board, 68 Wis.2d 127, 227 N.W.2d 642, 231 N.W.2d 193 (1975); Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. J. P. Cullen & Son, 253 Wis. 105, 33 N.W.2d 182 (1948). The inapplicability of summary judgment procedure to administrative review proceedings is further supp......
-
Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd. v. Mews
...etc., Union, supra, footnote 3; Wisconsin E. R. Board v. Allis-Chalmers W. Union, supra, footnote 3.17 Wisconsin E. R. Board v. J. P. Cullen & Son (1948), 253 Wis. 105, 33 N.W.2d 182; Wisconsin E. R. Board v. Allis-Chalmers W. Union (1948), 252 Wis. 436, 31 N.W.2d 772, 32 N.W.2d 190.18 Wisc......
-
Wisconsin Employment Relations Bd. v. Lucas
...board for findings on the subject. Bell v. Personnel Board, 259 Wis. 602, 609, 49 N.W.2d 889. Cf. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. J. P. Cullen & Son, 253 Wis. 105, 108, 33 N.W.2d 182. This is not a case for application of the presumption that an administrative agency has made all fi......
-
State v. Lamping
...212, 220--221, 107 N.W.2d 169.8 (1948), 252 Wis. 436, 440, 31 N.W.2d 772, 32 N.W.2d 190, 192.9 Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. J. P. Cullen & Son (1948), 253 Wis. 105, 33 N.W.2d 182.10 For a case holding that a request for leave to present additional evidence before the agency was n......