Opinion
April 3, 1950 —
May 2, 1950.
APPEAL from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county: ROLAND J. STEINLE, Circuit Judge. Affirmed.
For the appellants there were briefs by Padway, Goldberg Previant of Milwaukee, and oral argument by David Previant.
For the respondents Wisconsin Employment Relations Board and Board of Arbitration there were briefs by the Attorney General, Stewart G. Honeck, deputy attorney general, and Beatrice Lampert, assistant attorney general, and oral argument by Mrs. Lampert.
For the respondent Milwaukee Electric Railway Transport Company there was a brief by Shaw, Muskat Paulsen, attorneys, and John G. Quale of counsel, all of Milwaukee, and oral argument by Mr. Martin R. Paulsen and Mr. Quale.
On December 31, 1948, the Milwaukee Electric Railway Transport Company (hereinafter referred to as the "company") filed a petition with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board (hereinafter referred to as the "board") for the appointment of a conciliator to attempt to effect a settlement of a labor dispute between the company and the Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 998, A. F. of L. (hereinafter referred to as the "union").
The petition alleged that a general labor agreement between the company and the union was due to expire at midnight, December 31, 1948; that the parties had attempted in good faith to negotiate the terms of an agreement for the year 1949, but had not been able to reach an agreement thereon; that the collective-bargaining negotiations had reached an impasse and stalemate; that the parties will be unable to effect a settlement of their dispute without the intervention, aid, and assistance of the conciliation and/or arbitration processes and procedures provided for in secs. 111.50 through 111.65 of the Wisconsin statutes, and that the company believed that the dispute, if not settled, will cause, or is likely to cause, an interruption of essential public passenger-transportation services.
The board ordered a public hearing on the petition to be held on January 5, 1949. The union appeared and moved for the dismissal of the petition and that all further proceedings be terminated because the sections of the statute referred to in the petition were unconstitutional and void. The board overruled the union's motions and appointed a conciliator. Thereafter the parties met with the conciliator appointed by the board. The union at said meeting, and at subsequent meetings with the conciliator and the arbitrators thereafter appointed, reiterated its objections to the procedure for the purpose of preserving its rights in the matter and stating that its appearances were to be without prejudice to its objections to the validity of the law.
On January 31, 1949, the conciliator reported to the board that he had been unable to effect a settlement of the dispute within the time allotted. The board thereupon appointed a panel of five persons and directed that the parties appear before the board on February 3, 1949, for the selection of three members of the panel to act as a board of arbitration. The board of arbitration held hearings and on April 9, 1949, issued its decision and order, which was filed with the clerk the circuit court for Milwaukee county on April 11, 1949. The union, together with George Koechel, its president, and Charles Brehm, a member of the bargaining committee of the union, individually and in their representative capacities, then petitioned the circuit court for Milwaukee county to review and set aside all orders of the board and of the board of arbitration, composed of Carl Ludwig, H. Herman Rauch, and J. Martin Klotsche. The board and its individual members, the three arbitrators, and the company were named as respondents in the petition. From a judgment of said circuit court dated February 23, 1950, denying the relief sought in the petition, the petitioners appeal.
This case and the case of Wisconsin E. R. Board v. Amalgamated Asso., ante, p. 43, 42 N.W.2d 471, were argued together upon the appeal. With one exception the contentions of the appellants in this case were raised in the companion case and were determined therein.
The remaining contention is that the statutes involved are in violation of sec. 16, art. VII, of the Wisconsin constitution which reads as follows:
"The legislature shall pass laws for the regulation of tribunals of conciliation, defining their powers and duties. Such tribunals may be established in and for any township, and shall have power to render judgment to be obligatory on the parties when they shall voluntarily submit their matter in difference to arbitration, and agree to abide the judgment or assent thereto in writing."
The appellants contend that the statutes under which the proceedings were held (secs. 111.50 through 111.65) create tribunals of conciliation and arbitration within the meaning of said constitutional provision; that tribunals created under said provision can only render a binding judgment when the parties have voluntarily submitted their matters in difference; and it follows that said statutes are therefore violative of the constitutional provision as they provide for compulsory arbitration.
In Borgnis v. Falk Co. 147 Wis. 327, 358, 133 N.W. 209, it was pointed out that this section of the constitution appears in art. VII dealing with the judiciary; that administrative agencies are not courts, and this provision therefore is not applicable to orders and awards of administrative agencies. For the same reasons we hold that secs. 111.50 through 111.65, Stats., are not violative of said constitutional provision.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.