Wisconsin Department of Employment Relations v. WERC

Wisconsin’s State Employee Labor Relations Act (the act) protected public employees’ rights to participate in unions and engage in union activities. Karen Hartberg worked for the Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services (the department) for two years. Hartberg received a letter from the department informing her that it intended to terminate her trainee position as a public-health educator. The letter cited Hartberg’s failure to follow procedures, absence from her station during work hours, and ignoring a supervisor’s instructions. After Hartberg failed to request a hearing, she was removed from her position. Hartberg was supposed to return to a position she previously held, but the position had been eliminated, so she was eventually released. Shortly after, Hartberg filed a complaint with the Wisconsin State Personnel Commission (the commission), contending her dismissal was based on protected union activity, namely, that she filed complaints with the commission and supported a coworker’s charge of sexual harassment. Hartberg’s union, District 1199W/United Professionals for Quality Health Care (the union) (plaintiff), filed an unfair-labor-practice charge with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), alleging the state was motivated by Hartberg’s protected union activities, in violation of the act. A hearing examiner sided with the union, finding that the department’s decision was based, in part, on Hartberg’s protected union activity. WERC adopted the examiner’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Wisconsin Department of Employment Relations (the state) (defendant) appealed to the circuit court, which upheld WERC’s order and finding that Hartberg’s termination was based in part on antiunion animus. The state appealed. At issue was whether the correct standard was applied by WERC and the lower courts. The state argued that the correct standard to be applied was one adopted by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), under which the employee has the burden of proving that antiunion animus contributed to the employee’s decision.