City of Madison, Joint School District No. 8 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission

In January 1971, the Madison Board of Education (the board) (defendant) was in the midst of negotiations for a new collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) with Madison Teachers, Inc. (the union) (plaintiff). One of the issues being negotiated was a fair-share clause, which would have required all teachers, even nonunion members, to pay union dues. Two teachers unaffiliated with the union, Albert Holmquist and Ralph Reid, mailed a letter to all teachers in the district expressing opposition to the clause. Most of the replies expressed solidarity with Holmquist and Reid. Holmquist and Reid drafted a petition calling for implementation to be delayed by one year so the idea could be discussed. During a school board meeting, the president of the union spoke during a public-comment portion, calling for an end to the impasse. Holmquist also spoke, claiming to represent an informal committee of teachers. Holmquist expressed opposition to the fair-share clause and presented the petition, which had been circulated to the teachers. Later that evening, the school board voted to accept a proposal that included all of the union’s demands except the fair-share proposal. The union accepted the proposal the following morning. The union filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) alleging that the board had committed a prohibited labor practice by permitting Holmquist to speak at the school board meeting. The union claimed that this violated a Wisconsin law prohibiting public schools from engaging in negotiations with a member of the bargaining unit other than the exclusive representative. WERC concluded that the board was guilty of the prohibited practice and ordered that it cease and desist from permitting employees other than representatives of the union to appear and speak at meetings of the board, which were open to the public. The circuit court affirmed. The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, finding that a clear and present danger existed, because Holmquist’s speech could be deemed a negotiation with the board having the potential to undermine bargaining exclusivity with the union.