Appendix — Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Ass'n
Supreme Court brief1976
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
= Oe oye ~ ay
pe ee es
.preme Court, U. »
kite D
APPENDIX —_—NOV 18 1995
Supreme Court of the Gnited States
OcToBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-1606
HorTonvit_eE Jomnt Scuoor District No. 1; Boarp or Epvuca-
TION OF HorTONVILLE Jotnt Scuoo.r District No. 1; RoGer
WernHinGc, Ropert Havuk, JEAN MeEaps, FLoyp MEyeEr,
MERLIN PLAMANN, Victor ScHROTH and RONALD SURPRISE,
individually and as officers and members of the Board of
Education of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1; and
Marvin Opry, Rosert Kouts and Gene RIept, individually
and as administrators of Hortonville Joint School District
No. 1,
PETITIONERS,
v.
HorTONVILLE EpucaTion AssociaTION and Micuaet Wis-
NOSKI, Rose Marre Otson, THomas NapDEaAu, Jupy Murpny,
Russet Licute and Ronatp HAMMOND,
RESPONDENTS.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
PETITION FOR CERTIORARI FILED JUNE 19, 1975
__ CERTIORARI GRANTED OCTOBER 6, 1975
}
“
;
i
>
;
}
Si6tT &t AON
Qa ‘17 q
aS fi 'UN0D) aWaidn
~~
CONTENTS OF APPENDIX
Page
| Chronological List Of Relevant Docket Entries ..... A-1
Plaintiffs’ Order To Show Cause (April 4, 1974) ....A-5
De CAE G, TIED occ cdccvccccccvecvscevn A-7
Complaint (April 4, 1974) ........ cece ee eee eee A-7
Affidavit Of Michael Wisnoski In Support Of Order To
Show Cause (April 4, 1974) ..........c eee eee A-15
Affidavit Of Rose Marie Olson In Support Of Order To
Show Cause (April 4, 1974) ........-..eeeeeee A-22
Affidavit Of Thomas Nadeau In Support Of Order To
Show Cause (April 4, 1974) ........ccccceeees A-26
Affidavit Of Judy Murphy In Support Of Order To
Show Cause (April 4, 1974) .......... cee eens A-29
Affidavit Of Russell Lichte In Support Of Order To
Show Cause (April 4, 1974) ..........0.ee00ee A-32
Affidavit Of Ronald Hammond In Support Of Order
To Show Cause (April 4, 1974) ............... A-35
Exhibit List Of Plaintiffs’ Exhibits In Hearing Held Be-
fore Circuit Court On Plaintiffs’ Application For
ee IE 6.6.4. a week esc nennsteeees A-38
Transcript Of Circuit Court’s Decision On Plaintiffs’
Application For Temporary Injunction (April 11,
gg MUTE TOT RT RCC UL TORT ET COTTE CTT A-119
Circuit Court’s Order Denying Application For Tem-
ee re ee A-127
Defendants’ Answer (April 24, 1974) ........... A-128
Circuit Court’s Pretrial Order Granting Leave To File
Amended Complaint And Extending Time For Sum-
mary Judgment Motion (June 3, 1974) ........ A-131
Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint (May 30, 1974) ...A-132
Defendants’ Answer To First Cause Of Action In
Amended Complaint And Demurrer To Stated Sec-
ond, Third, and Fourth Causes Of Action (June 20,
SUE. op cd sdcadacesssckeessadeacesag sce oueee
Plaintiffs’ Notice Of Motion For Order Overruling De-
mourrers (Jume 21, 1974) ....cccccccccccccess A-148
Plaintiffs’ Motion For Order Overruling Demurrers
in BE. GPG 0 bss ccceneonasceccesvesewns A-148
Defendants’ Notice Of Motion For Summary Judgment
og A, rere sre A-149
Affidavit Of Roger Weihing In Support Of Motion For
Summary Judgment (June 20, 1974) .......... A-150
Affidavit Of Michael Wisnoski In Opposition To Mo-
tion For Summary Judgment (June 25, 1974) ...A-167
Circuit Court Decision Granting Motion For Summary
Judgment To First Cause Of Action In Amended
Complaint (July 19, 1974) ..............008. A-172
Circuit Court Decision Sustaining Demurrers To Sec-
ond, Third And Fourth Causes Of Action In Amend-
ed Complaint (July 19, 1974) ............08. A-203
Circuit Court Order Granting Motion For Summary
Judgment On First Cause Of Action (July 26,
ee rT ere re me ee A-210
Circuit Court Order Sustaining Demurrers To Second,
Third And Fourth Causes Of Action (July 26,
DCG area eee eee ona eans ee hee sabe A-211
Judgment Dismissing First Cause Of Action (August
Re rg FEA ger erste eyo eae A-212
Notice Of Entry Of Judgment (August 28, 1974) ..A-214
Petition To The Wisconsin Supreme Court For Leave
To File An Original Action (September 10, 1974). A 216
Order To Show Cause (September 10, 1974) ...... A-226
Opinion Of Wisconsin Supreme Court (February 5,
SE DANE ERC Ee ss b4 Cede Rea ees A-230
Concurring—Dissenting Opinion Of Mr. Justice Han-
Bi scRn0eba Kb ene dbedsedeathveescanedis A-260
Concurring Opinion Of Mr. Justice Robert Hansen . A-262
Respondent’s Motion For Rehearing (February 21,
PE ccs ess Cheb uNvees sb seenawhewewe A-270
Appellant’s Motion For Rehearing (February 22,
LAPP rere rr err ere rere Tye A-270
Respondent’s Petition For Order To Show Cause And
Temporary Restraining Order (February 20, 1975)
CCE eee Ee red LOTTO TUE TT CT EET Cee Tee A-271
Order To Show Cause And Temporary Restraining
Order (February 22, 1975) ....ccccccccsccess A-274
Respondent’s Motion To Vacate Temporary Restrain-
ing Order And To Deny Permanent Injunction And
Memorandum In Support Of Motion To Vacate
Temporary Restraining Order And In Opposition To
Order To Show Cause For Permanent Injunction
EG eee bade ueueeeeteesees A-275
Affidavit Of Jack Walker In Support Of Motion To
Vacate Temporary Restraining Order And Opposing
Motion For Permanent I[njunction (February 24,
RS SS ey eT er ene mae A-279
Order Of Wisconsin Supreme Court Denying Order To
Show Cause And Vacating Temporary Restraining
Order (February 24, 1975) .. 0... cccccccccces A-283
Per Curiam Decision Of Wisconsin Supreme Court De-
nying Motion For Rehearing (March 28, 1975) ..A-284
Respondent’s Motion To The Wisconsin Supreme Court
For Stay To Permit Application To Supreme Court
Of The United States For A Writ Of Certiorari And
Memorandum In Support Of Motion (April 16,
SPE bach Gop Serene sbed ee keke keKeENs A-285
Appellant’s Memorandum In Oppisition To Respon-
dent’s Request For A Stay (April 16, 1975) ..... A-287
ill
Order Of Wisconsin Supreme Court Granting Motion
For Stay And Ordering Such Stay For A Period Of
Ninety (90) Days Or Until Further Order Of The
Court (April 30, 1975) ......cccccccvccvvens A-298
Appellant’s Motion For Reconsideration Of Stay Order
2 So . PPPererrrrryrrrrerer Tre re tee A-299
Order Of Wisconsin Supreme Court Denying Motion
For Reconsideration Of Stay Order (May 7, 1975)
bE ONCE CIES AEE TEES eda s aoe GLEE ae A-301
_. SPP UET eT eT ere eT CTC TT TTT TTT A-302
Respondent’s Memorandum Opposing Motion To Va-
cate Stay Order (June 16, 1975) .............. A-303
Affidavit Of Thomas St. John In Support Of Motion To
Vacate Order Staying Execution Of Judgment (July
i EE 4h as ODES cewetd eens eseneuesaees A-305
Order Of Wisconsin Supreme Court Denying Motion To
Vacate Stay Order (July 8, 1975) ............ A-306
Respondent’s Motion To The Wisconsin Supreme Court
For Continuance Of Stay Previously Granted (July
PERT E CT TTC CC CCC TTT TET ET eT A-307
Appellant’s Memorandum In Opposition To Respon-
dent’s Motion For Continuance Of Stay (July 29,
SCOT ETRE TT CELT OTT Tere TT ere A-309
Order Of The Wisconsin Supreme Court Denying Mo-
tion For Extension Of Stay (August 1, 1975) ...A-311
Petitioner’s Application For Stay Of Mandate Of Wis-
consin Supreme Court Pending Review On Certiorari
To William H. Rehnquist, Associate Justice, United
States Supreme Court And Circuit Justice For The
Seventh Circuit (August 8, 1975) ............. A-311
Respondent’s Opposition Memorandum To Application
For Stay Of Mandate To Mr. Justice Rehnquist (Au-
rr yr Oe ne rere fro eee A-320
Decision Of Mr. Justice Rehnquist Denying The Appli-
cation For Stay Of Mandate (August 18, 1975) ..A-327
Order Of Circuit Court Staying Proceedings Pending
Decision Of United States Supreme Court (October
ERE Pare err era A-328
ERRATA TO APPENDIX INDEX
Page
Exhibits admitted by Circuit Court at hearing on Order
To Show Cause April 9, 10, 11, 1974:
i eee ec ce es eae eh hh as ae ve ee Os 38
ee ea ee ae as 5s 5 5.6 8k 0.6 38
a eg a aa Wa bw 9 46 006 46.3 40
AE AD ae er 4]
eM Sk ai dooce 0 66.00 1 R06: 8 42
ee eee yee hi eek inues 60
TENS uh A eo eo aa 62
er eR ates aw ow 0 ao... 6 OW 99
EE Sale 106
I SE ee ee 112
ES ee a ee ee eee 116
UE Oe ee 118
Order of Wisconsin Supreme Ccurt denying retition for
original action, filed September 24, 1974 ........ 227
Notice of Appeal, filed in circuit court, Outagamie
County, Wisconsin, October 10, 1974 ........... 229
Judgment of Wisconsin Supreme Court reversing the
judgment of the circuit court for Outagamie Coun-
Oe, Gee ET OH, BUGS vc vce sicececcnesens 269
‘alll
A-1
APPENDIX
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT
DOCKET ENTRIES
April 5, 1974 - Plaintiffs’ Order to Show Cause, Summons,
Complaint and Affidavits in Support of Order to Show
Cause, filed in circuit court, Outagamie County, Wiscon-
sin.
April 9, 10 and 11, 1974 - Hearing held on plaintiffs’
application for temporary injunction before the Honor-
able Allan J, Deehr, Circuit Judge.
April 24, 1974 - Defendants’ answer filed.
April 25, 1974 - Circuit court’s order denying temporary
injunction, filed.
May 31, 1974 - Plaintiffs’ amended complaint filed.
June 5, 1974 - Circuit court’s pre-trial order filed, grant-
ing leave to file amended complaint and extending time
for summary judgment motions.
June 20, 1974 - Defendants’ answer to first cause of ac-
tion in amended complaint and demurrer to stated sec-
ond, third and fourth causes of action, filed.
June 26, 1974 - Plaintiffs’ notice of motion and motion
for order overruling demurrers, filed.
June 27, 1974 Transcript of circuit court’s April 11,
1974 decision from the bench denying temporary in-
junction, filed.
June 27, 1974 - Defendants’ notice of motion and mo-
A-2
tion for summary judgment, and affidavit in support of
motion for summary judgment, filed.
June 27, 1974 - Plaintiffs’ affidavit in opposition to de-
fendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed.
July 19, 1974 - Circuit court decision filed, granting mo-
tion for summary judgment to first cause of action in
amended complaint.
July 19, 1974 - Circuit court decision filed, sustaining
demurrers to second, third and fourth causes of action
in amended complaint.
July 29, 1974 - Order granting motion for summary judg-
ment and Order sustaining demurrers to second, third
and fourth causes of action, filed.
August 27, 1974 - Judgment dismissing first cause of ac-
tion filed.
September 4, 1974 - Notice of entry of judgment filed.
September 10, 1974 - Order to show cause and petition
for leave to commence an original action filed by plain-
tiffs in the Wisconsin Supreme Court; order to show cause
signed by Chief Justice Horace W. Wilkie.
September 24, 1974 - Order entered by Wisconsin Su-
preme Court denying petition for original action and
setting briefing schedule if an appeal is taken from the
circuit court’s decision.
October 10, 1974 - Notice of appeal filed by plaintiffs in
circuit court for Outagamie County, Wisconsin.
November 26, 1974 - Cause argued before the Wisconsin
Supreme Court.
A-3
February 5, 1975 - Opinion of Wisconsin Supreme
Court filed, and judgment of Wisconsin Supreme Court
entered reversing the judgment of the circuit court and
remanding for further proceedings.
February 21, 1975 - Order to show cause and temporary
restraining order and petition therefor filed by plaintiffs
in Wisconsin Supreme Court; order to show cause and
temporary restraining order signed by Chief Justice Hor-
ace W. Wilkie
February 24, 1975 - Motions for rehearing by Appellants
and Respondents filed in Wisconsin Supreme Court.
February 24, 1975 - Defendants’ motion to vacate tem-
porary restraining order and to deny permanent in-
junction, and affidavit in support thereof, filed.
February 24, 1975 - Order of Wisconsin Supreme Court
filed, denying order to show cause and vacating tem-
porary restraining order.
March 28, 1975 - Per Curiam decision of Wisconsin Su-
preme Court filed, denying motions for rehearing and re-
vising a sentence in the February 5th opinion of the
court.
April 17, 1975 - Respondents’ motion for stay to permit
application to Supreme Court of the United States for a
writ of certiorari, filed in Wisconsin Supreme Court.
April 22, 1975 - Appellants’ memorandum opposing re-
quest for stay filed.
April 30, 1975 - Order of Wisconsin Supreme Court filed,
granting motion for stay and ordering such stay for a
period of ninety (90) days or until further order of the
court.
A-4
May 6, 1975 - Appellants’ motion for reconsideration of
stay order filed.
May 7, 1975 - Order of Wisconsin Supreme Court filed,
denying motion for reconsideration of stay order.
June 9, 1975 - Appellants’ motion to vacate stay order
filed.
Jone 16, 1975 - Respondents’ memorandum opposing
motion to vacate stay order, filed.
June 19, 1975 - Petition for writ of certiorari filed in
the United States Supreme Court.
July 7, 1975 - Appeliants’ affidavit in support of motion
to vacate stay order, filed.
July 8, 1975 - Order of Wisconsin Supreme Court filed,
denying motion to vacate stay order.
July 23, 1975 - Respondents’ motion for continuance of
the stay previously granted. filed with Wisconsin Su-
preme Court.
July 30, 1975 - Entry Omitted.
August 1, 1975 - Order of Wisconsin Supreme Court
filed, denying motion for extension of stay.
August —, 1975 - Petitioners’ application for stay of man-
date of the Wisconsin Supreme Court pending review on
certiorari, to William H. Rehnquist. Associate Justice,
United States Supreme Court and Circuit Justice for the
Seventh Circuit, filed.
August —, 1975 - Respondents’ opposition memoran-
dum to application for stay of mandate, to Justice
Rehnquist, filed.
A-5
August 21, 1975 - Decision of Mr. Justice Rehnquist de-
nying the application for stay of mandate, No. A-133
(74-1606), received by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
October 6, 1975 Petition for ceriotiorari granted.
October 24, 1975 - Order of circuit court staying proceed-
ings pending decision of United States Supreme Court,
filed in Outagamie County Circuit Court.
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
HORTONVILLE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION and
MICHAEL WISNOSKI, ROSE MARIE OLSON,
THOMAS NADEAU, JUDY MURPHY, RUSSEL
LICHTE, and RONALD HAMMOND, |
Plaintiffs,
vs.
HORTONVILLE JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1;
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF HORTONVILLE
JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ROGER WEIH-
ING, RCBERT HAUK, JEAN MEADS, FLOYD
MEYER, MERLIN PLAMANN, VICTOR SCHROTH,
and RONALD SUPRISE, individually and as officers
and members of the Board of Education of Hortonville
Joint School District No. 1; and MARVIN OBRY,
ROBERT KOHLS, and GENE RIEDL, individually
and as administrators of Hortonville Joint Schoo! District
No, 1,
Defendants.
oe
A-6
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
TO: The defendants above-named.
On reading and filing the verified Complaint and the
Affidavits of Michael Wisonski, Rose Marie Olson, Thom-
as Nadeau, Judy Murphy, Russel Lichte, and Ronald
Hammond, and on the motion of Lawton & Cates, attorneys
for the plaintiffs above-named;
IT IS ORDERED that the above-named defendants, and
each one of them, show cause before me in the Circuit
Court Room of the Outagamie County Court House, at 9:30
A.M., on April 10, 1974, why an injunction should not
be granted temporarily restraining the said defendants, their
administrators and any and all other of their agents, from
hiring any permanent replacements for the plaintiffs, or
any other teachers similarly situated, and ordering the de-
fendants to rescind, and render null and void, any and all
contracts with such permanent replacements, that might
have been entered into, and ordering such other and fur-
ther relief as is prayed for in the aforesaid Complaint; let
a copy of this Order to Show Cause be served on said de-
fendants, together with copies of the Complaint and Affi-
davits referred to above, not less than before said hearing;
* * x
Dated: April 4, 1974.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ GORDON MYSE
Judge
Outagamie County Circuit Court
A-7
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
SUMMONS
THE STATE OF WISCONSIN, TO SAID DEFEN-
DANTS:
You are hereby summoned and regzired to serve upon
Lawton & Cates, plaintiff's attorneys, whose address is 110
East Main Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53703, an answer
to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within
twenty (20) days after service of this summons upon you,
exclusive of the day of service, and in case of your failure
to do so, judgment will be rendered against you accord-
ing to the demand of the complaint.
Dated: April 4, 1974
/s/ BRUCE EHLKE
LAWTON & CATES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
110 East Main Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
COMPLAINT
Case No.
COME NOW the plaintiffs above-named, by their at-
torneys, Lawton & Cates, and as and for a cause of action
A-8
against the above-named defendants, allege and show to
the Court as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Hortonville Education Association (here-
inafter “Association”), is a labor organization as defined at
Section 111.70 (1) (j), of the Wisconsin Statutes. It is the
collective bargaining representative of all teachers em-
ployed by the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1.
Michae! Wisnoski is the President of the Association.
Plaintiff Michael Wisnoski is a public school teacher.
He resides with tis wife and three (3) children at Route
#1, North Road, Appleton, Wisconsin. At al! times mater-
ial hereto, he has been employed as a junior high school
teacher by the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and
he has been the President of the Association.
Plaintiff Rose Marie Olson is a public school teacher.
She resides with her husband and two (2) children at
509 West Cedar Street, Hortonville, Wisconsin. At all times
material hereto, she has been employed as a teacher by the
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1.
Plaintiff Thomas Nadeau is a pub'ic school teacher. He
resides with his wife and children at Roue # 1, Grand-
view Road, Hortonville, Wisconsin. At all times material
hereto, he has been employed as a high school teacher by
the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1.
Plaintiff Judy Murphy is a public school teacher. She
resides with her children at 728 Chestnut Street. Nee:
nah, Wisconsin. At all times material hereto, she has been
employed as a guidance counselor by the Hortonville
Joint School District No. 1.
Plaintiff Russel Lichte is a pub'ic school teacher. He
resides with his wife at 2300 Woodrow Court, Appleton,
Wisconsin. At all times material hereto he has been em-
vee. @
A-9
ployed as a high school, junior high school, and elemen-
tary school teacher by the Hortonville Joint School District
No. 1.
Plaintiff Ronald Hammond is a public school teacher.
He resides with his three children at 518 Whitney Street,
Kaukauna, Wisconsin. At all times material hereto, he has
been employed as a junior high school teacher by the Hor-
tonville Joint School District No. 1.
2. The plaintiffs individually named in paragraph 1
of this Complaint are representative of all teachers em-
ployed by the District whose employments the Board has
acted to terminate. Said plaintiffs represent all other Hor-
tonville teachers so situated, and the issues named in this
Complaint are of common interest to all teachers in said
class. Said class of teachers is too numerous, and it is im-
practical, to bring all of them before this Court. The
named plaintiffs fairly and fully will represent all of the
interests of all other teachers situated similarly to the in-
dividually-named plaintiffs.
3. Defendant Hortonville Joint School District No. 1
(hereinafter “District”) is a public school district organ-
ized under the laws of the State of Wisconsin. The Dis-
trict is a municipal employer as defined at Section 111.70
(1) (2), of the Wisconsin Statutes, It has its offices at 211
East Union Street, Hortonville, Wisconsin. Defendant
Board of Education of the District (hereinafter “Board”)
is a public body charged under Wisconsin law with the
management of the District. It has its offices at 211 East
Union Street, Hortonville, Wisconsin. The duly-elected and
acting President of the Board is Roger Weihing, who re-
sides at Route # 1, Appleton, Wisconsin.
A-10
Defendant Marvin Obry is the Superintendent of the Dis-
trict and agent of the Board. He has his office at 211 East
Union Street, Hortonville, Wisconsin. Defendant Robert
Kohls is the Hortonville High School Principal and agent
of the Board. He has his office at 246 North Olk Street,
Hortonville, Wisconsin. Defendant Eugene Ried] is the
Hortonville Junior High School and Elementary Schools
Principal and agent of the Roard. He has his office at 211
East Union Street, Hortonville, Wisconsin.
The remaining individually-named defendants all are
members of the Board. Robert Hauk, the Clerk of the
Board, resides at 111 East Cedar Street, Hortonville, Wis-
consin. Jean Meads resides at Route # 1, Hortonville, Wis-
consin. Floyd Meyer resides at Route # 2, Appleton,
Wisconsin. Merlin Plamann resides at 4510 North Mc-
Arthy Road, Appleton, Wisconsin. Victor Schroth resides
at Route # 1, Hortonville. Wisconsin. Ronald Suprise re-
sides at Route # 2, Hortonville, Wisconsin.
4. Immediately prior to and during and immediately
following the weekend of March 30 and 31, 1974, the in-
dividually-named plaintiffs, and all other teachers repre-
sented by the Association, were served notices that the
Board had scheduled hearings for each and every one of
them, at twenty-minute intervals, commencing Monday
morning, April 1, 1974, through and until late on
Wednesday evening, April 3, 1974. The timing of the said
notices denied the plaintiffs and others who received simi-
lar notices a fair opportunity to consult with an attorney
and to prepare a defense.
5. On Monday, April 1, 1974, the plaintiffs and other
teachers appeared before the Board and objected to the
A-11
lack of a fair notice of the scheduled hearings, to the
Board acting as the decision-maker in their cases, because
of its involvement in the very circumstances which gave
rise to the Board’s consideration of the termination of their
employments, and requested opportunity to present evi-
dence in their defense, and in mitigation of reasons the
Board might consider for termination of their employments.
At the beginning of said appearance before the Board, the
plaintiffs and the other teachers also requested the oppor-
tunity to examine adversary management personnel rela-
tive to the charges against them. All of the objections and
requests made by the plaintiffs and by other teachers were
denied by the Board, which acted on the advice of its at-
torney, James Ruhly, who also was the attorney responsible
for presenting the charges and evidence against them.
6. By letters dated April 2, 1974, the plaintiffs and,
on information and belief, almost all other teachers em-
ployed by the District, were notified by the Board that the
Board had acted to terminate their employments. By these
same letters, the plaintiffs and other teachers were invited
individually to re-apply for employment with the district.
7. The Association, which represents the plaintiffs and
the other teachers employed by the district, was not in-
formed of the hearings scheduled by and before the
Board for April 1, 2, and 3, 1974. The Association also
was not given any advance notification of the Board’s de-
cision to terminate the employments of the plaintiffs and
other teachers represented by the Association.
8. On information and belief, it is the intention of the
Board and their administrators and agents, to hire perma-
nent replacements for all teachers represented by the As-
pes
A-12
sociation, including the plaintiffs, who have been dis-
charged. The Board, and its administrators and agents,
already have taken steps to begin recruitment of such per-
manent replacements and to hire such replacements.
9. There does not exist just cause for the discharge of
the plaintiffs and other teachers represented by the Asso-
ciation. Circumstances existed that are a defense or mitiga-
tion of any reason the Board may have, or may have had,
for the said discharges. The discharge of the plaintiffs, a4
of the other teachers represented by the Association, \. us
and is in violation of the collective bargaining agreement
in force between the Board and the Association, and said
discharges are null and void.
10. All of the aforesaid acts by the Board and their
administrators and agents have been done under color of
law, intentionally and maliciously, in bad faith, by the
named defendants acting individually and as part of
conspiracy to deny the plaintiffs and other teachers simi-
larly situated their lawful rights. Said acts by the Board
and their agents have been done for the purpose of and
have resulted in the plaintiffs and other teachers being
denied employment with the district, which resulted in sub-
stantial injury to their personal and professional reputa-
tions, and to their ability to secure employment in their
teaching profession. and caused them emotional upset and
distress, and have caused them to incur expense. By said
actions, the Board and the individually-named defendants
have deprived the plaintiffs and other teachers similarly
situated of property and liberty. Said actions have denied
them individual rights secured under the fourteenth (14th)
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which denied them
A-13
substantive and procedural due process of law, and which
denied them other legal rights.
11. On April 4, 1974, the plaintiffs and other teach-
ers who were discharged by the Board, filed grievances as
provided for under the collective bargaining agreement in
force between the Association and the Board. The plain-
tiffs and others similarly situated are acting with all de-
liberate speed to make use of all contractual remedies
available to them and, if necessary, to appeal for a hear-
ing to the Wisconsin Emp!oyment Relations Commission
(WERC) concerning their discharge.
12. The plaintiffs and all other teachers similarly
situated have been discharged from their public employ-
ment without being afforded the fair notice and full and
fair hearing required by constitutionally secured due
process of law. Said denial by the Board and its agents of
a fair pre-discharge hearing, and the Board and its
agents recruitment and hiring of permanent replace-
ments have caused and will cause irreparable harm to the
plaintiffs and others similarly situated.
WHE .EFORE, it is prayed that this Circuit Court en-
ter its order granting judgment for the plaintiffs and others
similarly situated:
A. declaring the aforesaid actions of the Board and
its agents to be a denial of constitutionally-secured due
process of law, and null and void;
B. ordering that the discharge of the plaintiffs and
the other teachers represented by the Association be set
aside, and declared null and void;
A-14
C. enjoining the defendants from recruiting and hiring
any permanent replacements for the plaintiffs and oth-
ers similarly situated, until such time as the plaintiffs and
others similarly situated have been afforded a full and fair
hearing that meets the requirements of constitutionally-se-
cured due process of law, concerning their discharges;
D. enjoining the defendants to rescind and to revoke
any contracts they have made for the permanent replace-
ment of any of the plaintiffs or other teachers similarly
situated;
E. ordering the Board to bargain in good faith com-
mencing immediately and continuously until such time as
the parties have resolved their labor dispute;
F. and that the Court grant such other and further
relief as may be appropriate.
Date: April 4, 1974
LAWTON & CATES
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: /s/ BRUCE F. EHLKE
[Verifications omitted in printing]
A-15
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ss
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
MICHAEL WISNOSKI, being first duly sworn, on
oath, deposes and says as follows:
1. Your Affiant, Michael Wisnoski, is by profession a
public school teacher. He is thirty-five (35) years of age,
and resides with his wife, Donna, and their three (3) mi-
nor children at Route # 1, North Road, Appleton, Wiscon-
sin.
2. At all times material hereto, your affiant has been a
junior high school science teacher and science department
chairman, and elementary science consultant emp'oyed by
the Hortonville Joint School District No, 1. The present
1973-74 school year is his seventh year of employment by
the said school district.
3. In addition to the normal expenses to feed, clothe
and otherwise s_ pport himself, his wife, and children, your
affiant also has mortgage payments to meet and car loan
repayments to make. Your affiant is dependent on his sal-
ary to support himself and his family and to meet his fi-
nancial obligations.
4. Since August, 1973, your affiant has been a duly-
elected and acting president of the Hortonville Education
A-16
Association. During the 1972-73 school year, he was the
president-elect of said Association. The Hortonville Edu-
cation Association represents all teachers employed by the
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and is the collec-
tive bargaining agent for said teachers.
5. The collective bargaining agreement presently in
force between the Association and the Hortonville Board of
Education provides a grievance procedure which includes
an appeal to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Comis-
sion (WERC) for a hearing. The said collective bargaining
agreement also provides that no teacher will be dismissed
from employment without just cause.
6. At about 7:30 o’clock in the evening on Saturday,
March 30, 1974, your affiant was served a notice by the
Hortonville Board of Education that it had scheduled a
hearing, to determine whether or not to discharge him, for
Tuesday morning, April 2, 1974, at 9:20. Your affiant did
not have an opportunity to consult with any attorney until
Monday, April! 1. 1974. To the best of your affiant’s knowl-
edge, all but two of the teachers represented ty the Hor-
tonville Education Association received hearing notices
similar to the one he received. A copy of the notice he re-
ceived is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit A. Only in-
dividual teachers were notified of the scheduled Board
hearings. The Association was not given any notice by the
Board of said hearings involving the employees it repre-
sents.
7. On Monday, April 1, 1974, your affiant appeared,
together with his attorney, before the Hortonville Board of
Education. At that time he objected to the short notice he
had been given of the discharge hearing scheduled by the
A-17
Board, and of his lack of opportunity to prepare any de-
fense. This objection was dismissed by the Board. At the
same time, he also objected to the Board sitting as the de-
cision-maker in any hearing concerning his discharge, be-
cause the Board itself was involved as an adverse party
in the very dispute that had generated the Board’s action
to discharge him. This objection too was dismissed by the
Board. The request of your affiant to present evidence in his
defense, and in mitigation of any conduct on his part that
the Board might consider to be a basis for terminating his
employment, also was denied by the Board, Both of his
objections and his request were dismissed by the Board
acting on the advice of its attorney, James Ruhly, who
also was acting as the “prosecuting” attorney.
8. On April 3, 1974, your affiant received a letter
from the Board of Education, a copy of which is attached
to this Affidavit as Exhibit B, which letter notifies him
that the Board had acted to terminate his employment with
the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. On that same
day your affiant a'so received, in the mail, a copy of the
Board resolution which decreed that all teachers represent-
ed by the Hortonville Education Association, except one,
were discharged, and that the Board would dishonor the
teaching contracts for the 1974-75 school year that it pre-
viously had tendered to said teachers. A copy of said Reso-
lution is attached to this Affidavit as Exhibit C. To the
best of your affiant’s knowledge, all teachers represented
by the Association received individual notices of a ter-
mination of their employment similar to the one received
by your affiant.
9. On April 4, 1974, your affiant filed a grievance with
the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 protesting the
A-18
termination of his employment on the grounds that said
termination of employment was without cause, in violation
of the collective bargaining agreement in force between the
Board of Education and his Association. To date, most of
the teachers represented by the Association who received
discharge notices similar to your affiant’s, have filed
grievances protesting said actions by the Board.
10. On information and belief, the Hortonville Board
of Education and their administrators and agents intend
to hir> a teacher to replace your affiant on a permanent
basis, To the knowledge of your affiant, the said Board
and their administrators and agents similarly intend to
hire permanent replacements for all other teachers repre-
sented by the Association whose employments have been
terminated. If such a recruitment is permitted, and such
hiring is accomplished, your affiant and his family, and
all other teachers and families similarly situated will be
harmed irreparably. The job market for public school
teachers generally is very poor. At this particular time in
the school year it virtually is non-existent.
11. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion that
the Board of Education and its administrators and agents
temporarily be enjoined from hiring any teachers to per-
manently replace your affiant or any other teachers simi-
larly situated, until such time as a full and fair hearing,
which meets the requirements of constitutionally-secured
due process of law, may be afforded to them.
Dated this 4 day of April, 1974.
/s/ MICHAEL WISNOSKI
Plaintiff
[Subscription omitted in printing]
: —
A-19
[EXHIBIT A, WISNOSKI AFFIDAVIT]
HORTONVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
246 North Olk Street
Hortonville, Wis. 54944
March 29, 1974
Mr. Michael Wisnoski
Route #1, Box 182E
Appleton, WI 54911
Dear Mr. Wisnoski:
The Board of Education for the Hortonville Commun-
ity Schools has been informed by Superintendent Obry that
since March 18, 1974:
You have breached your individual employment con-
tract; .
You have engaged in an unlawful strike contrary to
Wisconsin law. —
This alleged conduct, if true, subjects you to disciplinary
action by the Board, including termination of your em-
ployment contract.
You are hereby notified that the Board of Education
has set a hearing on this matter for Tuesday, April 2,
1974, at 9:20 o'clock in the forenoon, or as soon thereafter
as you may be heard, at the high school library, 246 North
Olk Street, Hortonville.
At this hearing you will be given the opportunity to pre-
sent any statement or evidence relevant to this alleged con-
duct.
Be further advised that after such hearing the Board
will notify you in writing of what disciplinary action, if
any, the Board has determined appropriate.
FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION:
/s/ Roger Weihing
Roger Weihing, President
ee oS ree O°
“ a
A-20
[EXHIBIT B, WISNOSKI AFFIDAVIT]
HORTONVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
246 North Olk Street
Hortonville, Wis. 54944
April 2, 1974
Mr. Michael Wisnoski
Route 1, Box 182E
Appleton, WI 54911
Dear Mr. Wisnoski:
Please be advised that the Board of Education met on
April 2, 1974, and took the following action:
The Board found you guilty of the conduct set forth in
Mr. Weihing’s notice of March 29, 1974. Specifically, it
found that since March 18, 1974:
You breached your individual employment contract:
You engaged in strike activity contrary to Wisconsin
law.
The Board further found that these breaches of duty
and law constitute good and sufficient cause for the imme-
diate termination of your teaching contract.
Therefore, you are advised that your employment with
the Hortonville Community Schools, Joint School District
#1. Village of Hortonville, et al.. is hereby terminated
effective immediately. Furthermore, this action includes
the withdrawal of the offer of employment for the 1974-
75 school term, and/or termination of such tendered em-
ployment contract, Be further advised that your district-
paid WPS hospital insurance coverage will cease on April
30, 1974, unless you make contrary arrangements with the
A-21
insurance company. Information regarding other fringe
benefits will be forthcoming to you in the near future.
The Board also directed the administration to com-
mence recruitment, both from within and outside the dis-
trict, for professional staff for the balance of the 1973-74
school year and thereafter. You are invited to apply for
any teaching position if you are interested in further em-
ployment in our district. You should contact Superinten-
dent Obry or a principal if you wish to so apply.
FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION:
/s/ Roger Weihing
Roger Weihing, President
[EXHIBIT C, WISNOSKI AFFIDAVIT]
RESOLUTION
Resolved, that all teachers, heretofore served with no-
tice of hearing dated March 29, 1974, or who waived such
service through legal representative, which notice alleged
breach of employment contract and participation in an un-
lawful strike, are guilty of such conduct and are therefore
hereby terminated as employees of this district, effective
immediately, except Tonia Stamborski; that such ter-
mination of employment includes withdrawal of the ten-
dered employment contract for the 1974-75 school year,
and/or termination of said contract; that the Board Presi-
dent shall prepare, after consultation with counsel, and
send, certified mail, return receipt requested, notice of
such action to such employees; that said notice shall in-
form such terminated employees that his or her district-
paid WPS hospital insurance is paid through the month of
April, 1974; that said notice shall inform such terminated
A-22
employees that they may apply for vacant positions in the
District, and that Tonia Stamborski be sent a letter by the
Board President reprimanding her for her participation
in the unlawful strike and her breach of her employment
contract, with a copy of said notice to be inserted in her
personne] file; and that a copy of this resolution be sent
to the President of the Hortonville Education Association.
Adopted by the Board of Education
April 2, 1974
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ss.
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
ROSE MARIE OLSON, being first duly sworn, on
oath deposes and says as follows:
1. Your affiant, Rose Marie Olson, is by profession a
public school teacher. She is thirty-seven (37) years of age
and resides with her husband, James Olson, and their owe
(2) adopted minor children at 509 West Cedar Street, Hor-
tonville, Wisconsin. Your affiant’s husband, James Chee
also is by profession a public school teacher. )
2. At all times material hereto, both your affiant and
her husband, James Olson, have been public school teach-
A-23
ers employed by Hortonville Joint School District No. 1.
Your affiant has been employed by the said Hortonville
Joint School District No. 1, as an elementary school teach-
er, continuously during the past nine (9) school years,
which employment has been regular, full-time employ-
ment during the present school year and the five (5) school
years immediately preceding this present year. The hus-
band of your affiant, James Olson, has been employed as
a regular, full-time junior high school teacher by the same
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, during the present
school year, and the ten (10) school years preceding this
year.
3. In addition to the normal expenses necessary to
feed, clothe, and otherwise support themselves and their
children, your affiant and her husband also have two
mortgage payments to meet. Your affiant and her husband,
James Olson, are wholly dependent on their salaries to sup-
port themselves and their children and to meet their fi-
nancial obligations.
4. At about 8 o’clock in the evening of Friday, March
29, 1974, your affiant was served a notice by the Board
of Education of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1,
that it had scheduled a hearing to determine whether or
not to discharge her, at 2:30 o’clock in the afternoon of
Monday, April 1, 1974. This meeting was scheduled to
last for twenty (20) minutes, At the same time, at 8 o'clock
in the evening of Friday, March 29, 1974, your affiant’s
husband was served with a notice by the same Board of
Education notifying him that the said Board had sched-
uled a hearing to determine whether or not to discharge
him, for 9:20 in the morning of Monday, April 1, 1974.
A-24
Neither your affiant nor her husband had opportunity to
consult with any attorney until the morning of April 1,
1974.
5. On Monday morning, April 1. 1974, your affiant
and her husband appeared, together with their attorney,
before the Board of Education of Hortonville Joint School
District No. 1. At that time, they objected to the short no-
tice that they had been given of the discharge hearing
scheduled by the Board, and of their lack of opportun-
ity to prepare any defense. This objection was dismissed
by the Board. At the same time they also objected to the
Board of Education sitting as the decision-maker in
any hearing concerning their discharge, for the reason that
the Board itself was involved as an adversary party in the
very labor dispute that had generated the Board’s action to
discharge them. This objection too was dismissed by the
Board. The request of your affiant and her husband to pre-
sent evidence in their defense and in mitigation of any
conduct on their part, that the Board might consider as a
basis for terminating their employments, also was denied
by the Board. Both of these objections and the request were
dismissed by the Board, acting on the advice of its at-
torney. James Ruhly, who also was acting as the “prosecut-
ing” attorney against your affiant and her husband.
6. On April 3, 1974, both your affiant and her hus-
band, James Olson, individually received letters from Board
of Education President, Roger Weihing, which letters were
notifying each of them individually that the Board had
acted to terminate their employments with the Horton-
ville Joint School District No, 1. On April 4, 1974, both
your affiant and her husband, each individually filed a
A-25
grievance with the Hortonville Joint School District No.
1, protesting the termination of their employments on the
grounds that said terminations of employment were with-
out cause, in violation of the collective bargaining agree-
ment which is in force between the Board of Education of
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and their union,
the Hortonville Education Association.
7. On information and belief, the Board of Educa-
tion of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and their
administrators and agents, intend to hire teachers to re-
place both your affiant and her husband on a regular,
full-time and permanent basis. If such a hiring is accom-
plished, your affiant, her husband, James Olson, and
their children irreparably will be harmed. The job market
for public school teachers at this time, and in particular
at this time in the school year, virtually is nonexistent.
8. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion that
the Board of Education, and its administrators and
agents, temporarily be enjoined from hiring any teachers
to replace your affiant and her husband, or any other
teachers similarly situated.
Dated this 4th day of April, 1974.
/s/ ROSE MARIE OLSON
Plaintiff
[Subscription omitted in printing]
A-26
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ss.
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
THOMAS NADEAU, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes and says as follows:
1. Your affiant, Thomas Nadeau, is by profession a
public school teacher. He is thirty-six (36) years of age,
and resides with his wife, Patricia Nadeau, and their three
(3) minor children, at Route # 1, Grandview Road, Hor-
tonville, Wisconsin.
2. At all times material hereto, your affiant, Thomas
Nadeau, has been a public school teacher employed by
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. Your affiant has
been employed by the said Hortonville Joint School Dis-
trict No. 1 as a high school biology teacher. continuously
during the past seven (7) i
years, including th
1973-74 school year. ee
3. In addition to the normal expemses necessary to
feed, clothe, and otherwise support himself, his wife, and
their children, your affiant also has a mortgage payment
to meet. Your affiant is dependent on his salary to support
himself, his wife, and children
‘ , and t ;
obligations. © meet his financial
Pieces
A-27
4. At about 8 o’clock in the evening of Friday, March
29, 1974, a notice was served by the Board of Education
of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 on the nine-year-
old son of your affiant, which notice informed your affi-
ant that the Board had scheduled a hearing, to deter-
mine whether or not to discharge him, at 11:20 o’c'ock in
the forenoon of Monday, April 1, 1974. This meeting was
scheduled to last for twenty (20) minutes. Your affiant
did not have opportunity to consult with any attorney un-
til the morning of April 1, 1974.
5. On Monday morning, April 1, 1974, your affiant
appeared, together with his attorney, before the Board of
Education of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. At
that time, he objected to the short notice that he had been
given of the discharge hearing scheduled by the Board,
and of his lack of opportunity to prepare any defense.
This objection was dismissed by the Board. At the same
time he also objected to the Board of Education sitting
as the decision-maker in any hearing concerning his dis-
charge, for the reason that the Board itself was invo!ved
as an adversary party in the very labor dispute that had
generated the Board's action to discharge them. This ob-
jection too was dismissed by the Board. The request of your
affiant to present evidence in his defense and in mitiga-
tion of any conduct on his part, that the Board might con-
sider as a basis for terminating his employment, also was
denied by the Board. Both of these objections and the re-
quest were dismissed by the Board, acting on the advice
of its attorney, James Ruhly, who also was acting as the
“prosecuting” attorney against your affiant.
6. On April 3, 1974, your affiant received a letter from
A-28
the Board of Education President Roger Weihing, which
letter notified him that the Board had acted to terminate
his employment with the Hortonville Joint School District
No. 1. On April 4, 1974, your affiant signed a grievance
with the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, protesting
the termination of his employment on the grounds that said
termination of employment was without cause, in viola-
tion of the collective bargaining agreement which is in force
between the Board of Education of Hortonville Joint School
District No. 1, and their union, the Hortonville Education
Association. In the same letter your affiant was notified that
the Board also would dishonor the teaching contract it
had tendered to him for the 1974-75 school year. The
present job market for public school teachers, particularly
at this time of the school year, virtually is non-existent.
7. On information and belief, the Board of Education
of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 and their ad-
ministrators and agents, intend do ire ; a teacher to replace
your affiant, on a permanent basis. If recruiting for such a
hiring is permitted, and if such a permanent hiring is ac-
complished, your affiant, and his family, will be harmed
irreparably.
8. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion that
the Board of Education, and its administrators and agents,
temporarily be enjoined from permanently hiring any
teacher to replace your affiant or any other teacher simi-
larly situated.
Dated this 4 day of April, 1974.
/s/ THOMAS NADEAU
Plaintiff
[Subscription omitted in printing]
aid
A-29
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
{Caption omitted in printing]
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ss.
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
JUDY MURPHY, being first duly sworn, on oath de-
poses and says as follows:
1. Your affiant, Judy Murphy, is by profession a pub-
lic school teacher. She is forty-two (42) years of age, and
resides with her two minor sons at 728 Chestnut Street,
Neenah, Wisconsin. She also has a daughter who is a fresh-
man in college.
2. At all times material hereto, your affiant has been
a public school teacher employed by Hortonville Joint
School District No. 1. Your affiant has been employed by
the said Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 as a guid-
ance counselor in the junior and senior high schools, which
employment has been regular, full-time employment dur-
ing the present school year and the two (2) school years
immediately preceding this present year.
3. In addition to the normal expenses necessary to
feed, clothe, and otherwise support herself and her three
children, your affiant also has a mortgage payment to
meet, as well as the expenses incidental to her daughter’s
college enrollment. Your affiant is dependent on her sal-
ary to support herself and her three (3) children and to
meet her financial obligations.
A-30
4. At about 10:30 o’clock in the morning of Monday,
April 1, 1974, your affiant was served a notice by the
Board of Education of Hortonville Joint School District
No. 1, that it had scheduled a hearing to determine
whether or not to discharge her, at 10:40 o’clock in the
evening of Wednesday, April 2, 1974. Your affiant did
not have an opportunity to consult with an attorney until
Monday, April 1, 1974.
5. On Monday, morning, April 1, 1974, your affiant
appeared, together with her attorney, before the Board of
Education of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. At
that time she objected to the short notice that she had been
given of the discharge hearing scheduled by the Board and
of her lack of opportunity to prepare her defense. This ob-
jection was dismissed by the Board. At the same time she
also objected to the Board of Education sitting as the de-
cision-maker in any hearing concerning her discharge, for
the reason that the Board itself was involved as an adver-
sary party in the very labor dispute that had generated
the Board’s action to discharge them. This objection too
was dismissed by the Board. The request of your affiant
to present evidence in her defense, and in mitigation of any
conduct on her part that the Board might consider as a
basis for terminating her employment, also was denied by
the Board. Both of these objections and the request were
dismissed by the Board, acting on the advice of its attor-
ney, James Ruhly, who also was acting as the “prosecut-
ing” attorney against your affiant.
6. On April 3, 1974, your affiant received a letter
from the Board of Education President Roger Weihing,
which letter was notifying her that the Board had acted to
A-31
terminate her employment with the Hortonville Joint School
District No. 1. On April 4, 1974, your affiant filed a griev-
ance with the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, pro-
testing the termination of her employment on the grounds
that said termination of employment was without cause, in
violation of the collective bargaining agreement which is in
force between the Board of Education of Hortonville Joint
School District No. 1, and her union, the Hortonville Edu-
cation Association.
7. On information and belief, the Board of Education
of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and their ad-
ministrators and agents, intend to hire a teacher to replace
your affiant on a permanent basis. If such a hiring is ac-
complished, your affiant and her children irreparably will
be harmed. The job market for public school teachers at
this time, and in particular at this time in the schocl year,
virtually is non-existent.
8. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion that
the Board of Education and its administrators and agents,
temporarily be enjoined from hiring any teachers to replace
your affiant or any other teachers similarly situated.
Dated this 4 day of April, 1974.
/s/ JUDY MURPHY
Plaintiff
(Subscription omitted in printing]
A-32
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ss.
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
RUSSELL LICHTE, being first duly sworn, on oath
deposes and says as follows:
. 1. Your affiant, Russel Lichte, is by profession a pub-
lic school teacher. He is twenty-six (26) years of age, and
resides with his wife, Lynn Lichte, at 2300 Woodrow Court
Appieton, Wisconsin. )
2. At all times material hereto, your affiant, Russel
Lichte, has been a public school teacher employed by Hor-
tonville Joint School District No. 1. Your affiant has been
employed by the said Hortonville Joint School District No. 1
as an elementary and junior high school physical educa-
tion teacher and junior high and high school math teacher
for two (2) continuous years, which employment has been
regular, full-time employment during the present school
year and the school year immediately preceding this pres-
ent year.
3. In addition to the normal expenses necessary to
feed, clothe and otherwise Support himself and his wife
your affiant also has to pay rent. Your affiant. Russel
Lichte, is wholly dependent on his salary to support him-
self and his wife and to meet their financial obligations.
A-33
4. At about 7:45 o'clock in the morning of Saturday,
March 30, 1974, your affiant was served a notice by the
Board of Education of Hortonville Joint School District
No. 1, that it had scheduled a hearing to determine wheth-
er or not to discharge him, at 2:10 o’clock in the after-
noon of Tuesday, April 2, 1974. This meeting was sche-
duled to last for twenty (20) minutes. Your affiant did not
have an opportunity to consult with any attorney until
Monday, April 1, 1974.
5. On Monday morning, April 1, 1974, your affiant
appeared together with his attorney, before the Board of
Education of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. At
that time, he objected to the short netice that he had been
given of the discharge hearing scheduled by the Board,
and of his lack of opportunity to prepare any defense.
This objection was dismissed by the Board. At the same
time he also objected to the Board of Education sitting as
the decision-maker in any hearing concerning his dis-
charge, for the reason that the Board itself was involved
as an adversary party in the very labor dispute that had
generated the Board’s action to discharge him, This ob-
jection too was dismissed by the Board. The request of
your affiant to present evidence in his defense, and in mi-
tigation of any conduct on his part that the Board might
consider as a basis for terminating his employment, also
was denied by the Board. Both of these objections and
the request were dismissed by the Board, acting on the
advice of its attorney, James Ruhly, who also was acting
as the “prosecuting” attorney against your affiant.
6. On April 3, 1974, your affiant received a letter from
the Board of Education President Roger Weihing, which
A-34
letter was notifying him that the Board had acted to ter-
minate his employment with the Hortonville Joint School
District No. 1. On April 4, 1974, your affiant filed a
grievance with the Hortonville Joint School District No. 1,
protesting the termination of his employment on the
grounds that said termination of employment was without
cause, in violation of the collective bargaining agreement
which is in force between the Board of Education of Hor-
tonville Joint School District No. 1, and their union, the
Hortonville Education Association.
7. On information and belief, the Board of Education
of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and their ad-
ministrators and agents, intend to hire teachers to replace
your affiant on a regular, full-time and permanent basis.
If such a hiring is accomplished, your affiant, Russel
Lichte, and his wife, irreparably will be harmed. Among
other things, if your affiant must depend on his wife to
support him, he and his wife will be unable to have chil-
dren and to raise a family. The job market for public
school teachers at this time, and in particular at this time
of the school year, virtually is non-existent.
8. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion that
the Board of Education, and its administrators and
agents, temporarily te enjoined from hiring any teachers
to replace your affiant and/or any other teachers similarly
situated.
Dated this 4 day of April, 1974.
/s/ RUSSEL LICHTE
Plaintiff
(Subscription omitted in printing]
Maes
A-35
STATE OF WISCONSIN OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[Caption omitted in printing]
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ss.
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY
RONALD HAMMOND, being first duly sworn, on
oath, deposes and says as follows:
1. Your affiant, Ronald Hammond, is by profession a
public school teacher. He is thirty-four (34) years of age,
a widower, and reides with his three (3) minor children,
ages 7, 9, and 11, at 518 Whitney Street, Kaukauna, Wis-
consin.
2. At all times material hereto, your affiant, Ronald
Hammond, has been a public school teacher employed by
Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. Your affiant has
been employed by the said Hortonville Joint School Dis-
trict No, 1 as a junior high school (grades 7 and 8) lan-
guage arts and social studies teacher, for thirteen (13) con-
tinuous years, which employment has been regu'ar, full-
time employment during the present school year and the
twelve (12) school years immediately preceding this pres-
ent year.
3. In addition to the normal expenses necessary to
feed, clothe, and otherwise support himself and his three
(3) minor children, your affiant also has to pay a babysit-
ter on a weekly basis because he is a widower, and he also
A-36
has car payments to make and other loan re-payments
to make. Your affiant, Rona'd Hammond, is wholly de-
pendent on his salary to support himself and his children
and to meet his financial obligations.
4. At about 12:00 noon on Monday, April 1, 1974,
your affiant was served a notice by the Board of Educa-
tion of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, that it had
scheduled a hearing to determine whether or not to dis-
charge him, at 1:50 o'clock in the afternoon of Wednes-
day, April 3, 1974. This meeting was scheduled to last
for twenty (20) minutes. Your affiant did not have an op-
portunity to consult with an attorney until Monday, April
1, 1974.
5. On Monday morning, April 1, 1974, your affiant
appeared, together with his attorney, before the Board of
Education of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1. At
that time, he objected to the short notice that he had been
given of the discharge hearing scheduled by the Board,
and of his lack of opportunity to prepare any defense.
This objection was dismissed by the Board. At the same
time he also objected to the Board of Education sitting as
the decision-maker in any hearing concerning his dis-
charge, for the reason that the Board itself was involved
as an adversary party in the very labor dispute that had
generated the Board’s action to discharge him. This ob-
jection too was dismissed by the Board. The request of
your affiant to present evidence in his defense, and in miti-
gation of any conduct on his part that the Board might
consider as a basis for terminating his employment, also
was denied by the Board. Both of these objections and the
request were dismissed by the Board, acting on the advice
A-37
of its attorney, James Ruhly, who also was acting as the
“prosecuting” attorney against your affiant.
6. On April 4, 1974, your affiant received a letter
from the Board of Education President Roger Weihing,
which letter was notifying him that the Board had acted to
terminate his employment with the Hortonville Joint School
District No. 1. On April 4, 1974, promptly after receiving
his letter of termination, the affiant, Ronald Hammond,
filed a grievance with the Hortonville Joint School Dis-
trict No. 1, protesting the termination of his employment
on the grounds that said termination of employment was
without cause, in violation of the collective bargaining
agreement which is in force between the Board of Educa-
tion of Hortonville Joint School District No. 1, and their
union, the Hortonville Education Association.
7. On information and belief, the Board of Education
of Hortonville Joint School District No, 1, and their ad-
ministrators and agents, intend to hire a teacher to replace
your affiant on a permanent basis. If such a hiring is ac-
complished, your affiant and his three children will be
caused irreparable harm. The job market for public school
teachers at this time, and in particular at this time in the
school year, virtually is non-existent.
8. This Affidavit is made in support of a motion that
the Board of Education, and its administrators and agents,
temporarily be enjoined from hiring any teachers to re-
place your affiant, or any other teachers similarly sit-
uated.
Dated this 4 day of April, 1974.
/s/ RONALD HAMMOND
Plaintiff
[Subscription omitted in printing]
A-38
EXHIBIT LIST
[Caption omitted in printing]
Judge Allen [sic] Deehr
Reporter James Kempfer
Hearing begun 4-9-74
PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT
Mkd for Offered With
Identf inevid Rec'd Ref'd drawn
Vv Vv Vv #1—notice of discharge hearing
Vv Vv v #2—letter of 4-2-74
Vv Vv Vv #3—Grievance of Lichte
Vv Vv Vv #4—Collective bargaining
Contract
Vv Vv Vv #5—2 page document signed
by Mr. Obry
Vv Vv Vv #6— 1973-74 Contract
Vv Vv Vv #7—Transcript
Vv Vv Vv #8—Notice with Ctf. of Service
Vv Vv Vv #9—Transcript 4-1-74
Vv Vv Vv #10—Transcript 4-2-74
Vv Vv Vv #11—document with options
Vv Vv Vv #12—minutes
Vv Vv #13—resolution— Powers
[EXHIBIT # 1, APRIL 9, 1974]
HORTONVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
246 North Olk Street
Hortonville, Wis. 54944
March 29, 1974
Mr. Russel Lichte
2300 Woodrow Ct Apt. #1
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
Dear Mr. Lichte:
The Board of Education for the Hortonville Commun-
A-39
ity Schools has been informed by Superintendent Obry that
since March 18, 1974:
You have breached your individual employment con-
tract;
You have engaged in an unlawful strike contrary to
Wisconsin law.
This alleged conduct, if true, subjects you to disciplin-
ary action by the Board, including termination of your em-
ployment contract.
You are hereby notified that the Board of Education has
set a hearing on this matter for Tuesday, April 2, 1974,
at 2:10 o’clock in the afternoon, or as soon thereafter as
you may be heard, at the high school library, 246 North
Olk Street, Hortonville.
At this hearing you will be given the opportunity to pre-
sent any statement or evidence relevant to this alleged con-
duct.
Be further advised that after such hearing the Board
will notify you in writing of what disciplinary action, if
any, the Board has determined appropriate.
FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION:
/s/ Roger Weihing
Roger Weihing, President
Served this 30 day of March 1974 A.D.
/s/ Calvin L. Spice
Sheriff
By: /s/ Donald R. Plato
Deputy Sheriff
A-40
[EXHIBIT # 2, APRIL 9, 1974]
HORTONVILLE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
246 North Olk Street
Hortonville, Wis. 54944
April 2, 1974
Mr. Russel Lichte
2300 Woodrow Ct, Apt. #1
Appleton, WI 54911
Dear Mr. Lichte:
Please be advised that the Board of Education met on
April 2, 1974, and took the following action:
The Board found you guilty of the conduct set forth in
Mr. Weihing’s notice of March 29, 1974. Specifically, it
found that since March 18, 1974:
You breached your individual employment contract;
You engaged in strike activity contrary to Wisconsin
law.
The Board further found that these breaches of duty
and law constitute good and sufficient cause for the im-
mediate termination of your teaching contract.
Therefore, you are advised that your employment with
the Hortonville Community Schools, Joint School District
#1, Village of Hortonville, et al., is hereby terminated, ef-
fective immediately. Furthermore, this action includes the
withdrawal of the offer of employment for the 1974-75
schoo] term, and/or termination of such tendered employ-
ment contract. Be further advised that your district-paid
WPS hospital insurance coverage will cease on April 30,
1974, unless you make contrary arrangements with the in-
surance company. Information regarding other fringe ben-
efits will be forthcoming to you in the near future.
A-41
The Board also directed the administration to com-
mence recruitment, both from within and outside the dis-
trict, for professional staff for the balance of the 1973-74
school year and thereafter. You are invited to apply for
any teaching position if you are interested in further em-
ployment in our district. You should contact Superinten-
dent Obry or a principal if you wish to so apply.
FOR THE BOARD OF EDUCATION:
/s/ Roger Weihing
Roger Weihing, President
[EXHIBIT 3, APRIL 9, 1974]
GRIEVANCE
I, the undersigned teacher employed in the Hortonville
Community Schools as a member of the Junior High-Ele-
mentary School faculty, under Mr. Riedl’s supervision,
hereby grieve the termination of my employment as no-
ticed to me by Board of Education President Roger Weih-
ing, by his letter to me dated April 2, 1974, on the
grounds said action by the Board of Education was with-
out just cause, in violation of the just cause requirement
of the collective bargaining agreement in force between
the Board and my Association. Remedy: employment.
April 4, 1974.
/s/ Russel E. Lichte
A-42
[EXHIBIT 4, APRIL 9, 1974]
Hortonville - 1972-73
PREAMBLE
in order to effectuate the provisions of Section 111.70
of the Wisconsin Statutes to encourage and increase ef-
fective and harmonious working relationships between the
Board of Education of Hortonville Community Schools,
being the Board of Education for Joint Schoo] District No.
1, of the Village of Hortonville, Wisconsin, (hereinafter
referred to as the “Board”), and its professional employees
represented by the Hortonville Education Association,
(hereinafter referred to as the “Association”), and to en-
able the professional employees more fully to participate in
and contribute to the development of policies on wages,
hours, and conditions of employment.
This agreement is made and entered into on this day of
, 19 . by and between the Board and the
Association.
RECOGNITION
The Board recognizes the Association as the exclusive
and sole bargaining representative for classroom teachers,
librarians, and guidance counselors—excluding principals,
assistant principals, supervisors, and administrators—
whether under contract, on leave, employed or to be em-
ployed by the Board.
MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
The Board, on its own behalf, and on behalf of the elec-
tors of the District, hereby retains and reserves unto itself,
without limitation, all powers, rights, authority, duties and
A-43
responsibilities conferred upon and vested in it by applic-
able law, rules and regulations to establish the framework
of school policies and projects including, but without
limitation because of enumeration, the right:
1. To the executive management and administrative
control of the school system and its properties, pro-
grams and facilities, and the activities of its em-
ployees;
2. To employ and re-employ all personnel and, subject
to the provisions of law or State Department of Pub-
lic Instruction regulations, determine their qualifi-
cations and scope of employment, or their dismissal
or demotion for just cause, their promotion and
their work assignment;
3. To establish and supervise the program of instruc-
tion and to make the necessary assignments for
all programs of an extra-curricular nature that, in
the opinion of the Board, benefit students;
4. To determine means and methods of instruction, se-
lection of textbooks and other teaching materials,
the use of teaching aides, class schedules, and hours
of instruction.
The exercise of the foregoing powers, rights, authority,
duties and responsibilities by the Board, the adoption of
policies, rules, regulations and practices in furtherance
thereof, and the use of judgement and discretion in con-
nection therewith shall be limited only by the specific and
express terms of this agreement and Wisconsin Statutes;
Section 111.70, and then only to the extent such specific
and express terms hereof are in conformance with the Con-
A-44
stitution and Laws of the State of Wisconsin, and the Con-
stitution and Laws of the United States. The Board shall en-
courage the use of administrative and teacher studies and
recommendations in their deliberations and whenever pos-
sible consult with the parties affected.
NEGOTIATION PROCEDURE
On or about January 10, 1973, the Board agrees to meet
and negotiate in good faith with the duly elected offi-
cers and/or committees of the Association on matters re-
lating to wages, hours, and working conditions of employ-
ees from the before mentioned bargaining unit.
If an impasse occurs and persists, the parties shall deter-
mine whether mediation procedures shall be utilizied. If
agreement on this matter is not forthcoming, the proce-
dures of fact finding shall include a request to the Wis-
consin Employment Relations Commission to provide the
parties with a list of five or seven names from which the
parties will select one as the fact finder. Parties initiating
mediation or fact finding shall scratch first commissioner,
and the scratching of other names will be done by alter-
nating between the Board and the Association.
The Association recognizes the legal obligation of the
Board to give to each teacher employed by it a written no-
tice of renewal or refusal to renew his individual contract
for the ensuing school year on or before March 15 of the
school year during which said teacher holds a contract,
pursuant to Section 118.22 (2) of the Wisconsin Statutes.
In the event an agreement concerning wages, hours, and
conditions of employment has not been reached by the par-
ties by the date, said individual teacher contracts shall be
governed by the terms of the latest Board proposal, and/or
until a master agreement is reached.
A-45
This agreement may not be modified in whole or in part
by the parties except by an agreement between the two
parties.
GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
A. Purpose - The purpose of this procedure is to provide
an orderly method for resolving differences arising
during the term of this agreement at the lowest pos-
sible administrative level. A determined effort shall be
made to settle any such differences through the use
of the grievance procedure, and there shall be no sus-
pension of work or interference with the operations
during the term of the agreement.
B. Definition - For the purpose of this agreement a
grievance is defined as any complaint regarding the
interpretation or application of a specific provision of
this agreement.
C. Grievances shall be processed in accordance with the
following procedures:
Step 1
a. An earnest effort shall first be made to settle the
matter informally between the teacher(s) and his
immediate supervisor.
b. If the matter is not resolved, the grievance shall
be presented in writing by the teacher(s) to the
immediate supervisor within five days after the
facts upon which the grievance is based first oc-
curred, or first became known. The immediate
supervisor shall give his written answer within
five days of the time the grievance was presented
to him in writing.
A-46
Step 2
If not settled in Step 1, the grievance may within five
days be appealed to the Superintendent of Schools.
The Superintendent shall give a written answer no
later than ten days after receipt of the appeal.
Step 3
If not settled in Step 2, the grievance may within ten
days be appealed to the Board of Education. The
Board shall give a written answer within thirty
days after receipt of the appeal.
Step 4
In case of failure to agree in Step 3, the matter in
dispute may be submitted on the petition of either
party to the Wisconsin Employment Relations Com-
mission to initiate advisory arbitration and to ask the
WERC to submit a list of five or seven names from
which an arbitrator will be selected. The initiator will
scratch the first name and the scratching of other
names will be done by alternating between the Board
and the Association.
The parties agree to follow each of the foregoing steps
in the processing of a grievance. If the employer fails
to give a written answer within the time limits set out
for any step, the employee(s) may immediately ap-
peal to the next step. Grievances not processed to the
next step within the prescribed time limits shall be
considered dropped.
The written grievance shall give a clear and concise
statement of the alleged grievance including the facts
H.
I.
A-47
upon which the grievance is based, the issue in-
volved, the specific section(s) of the agreement al-
leged to have been violated, and the relief sought.
The employees representative may assist in processing
the grievance at any step.
Saturdays, Sundays, and legal holidays shall be ex-
cluded in computing time limits under this article. It
is important that grievances be processed as rapid-
ly as possible and the number of days indicated at
each level should be considered as a maximum and
every effort should be made to expedite the process.
It shall be the option of the aggrieved to meet with
the Superintendent or the Board during Step 2 or 3.
In the event a grievance is filed so that sufficient time
as stipulated under al] levels of the procedure cannot
be provided before the last day of the school term,
should it be necessary to puruse the grievance to all
levels of the appeals, then said grievance shall be re-
solved in the new schoo] term in September under the
terms of this agreement and this article, unless mu-
tually agreed upon to continue it during the recessed
period.
Policy on Professional Growth
Because knowledge is expanding at a rapid rate and
educational innovations exist, the professional growth of the
teaching staff must be considered important.
The following policies are designed to promote that pro-
fessional growth:
Those with less than the Bachelor’s Degree shall be
A-48
required to earn a minimum of eight credits
at an accredited degree-granting institution of
higher learning every three years, or when it be-
comes necessary to obtain a teaching license.
Teachers with a Bachelor’s Degree shall earn a min-
imum of five credits every five years, dated from
September, 1964, or from their starting date of em-
ployment, whichever is later. However, if a teacher
wishes to qualify for the 4% year training level,
he or she must have 15 semester hours at graduate
level.
Teachers with a Master’s Degree shall earn a mini-
imum of five credits every seven years, dated from
September, 1969, or from the date of earning their
Master’s Degree, or from the starting date of em-
ployment, whichever is later. However, if a teacher
wishes to qualify for the 5’ year training level, he
or she must have 15 semester hours at graduate lev-
el in their major teaching field, but not necessarily
that they apply toward a doctoral degree.
Credits earned in one interval shall not count in
another interval.
These requirements shall hold until the time inter-
val in which the educator reaches the age of fifty-
five.
Educators desiring Board credit from other accred-
ited degree-granting institutions must apply for
permission from the Board of Education prior to
starting the activity. Board credit shall apply to-
ward policy on professiona! growth, but will not ap-
ply to item “e” under Appendix “A”.
A-49
Persons who fail to comply with the regulations will
remain at the contract salary under which they are
hired following the time interval, until such time
that they fulfill the requirements. Placement on
the salary schedule after the requirement is ful-
filled shal] be at the step following the step at which
the teacher last met the requirement.
Leave Policies
Sick Leave
a.
All teachers of Jt. School District #1 of the Village
of Hortonville, et al, shall be entitled to eight (8)
days of sick leave per year without deduction of
pay upon presentation of evidence of illness by a
reputable physician, if such evidence be deemed
necessary by the Superintendent.
The unused days each year shall be allowed to ac-
cumulate up to eighty-five (85) days, and are to be
available for qualified extended leave with no de-
duction of pay for the employee (40.17) (7).
Sick leave shall be interpreted to apply to absences
because of personal illness or physical incapacity of
the employee himself, to absences because of serious
illness within the immediate family of the employee,
or to absences occasioned by death within the im-
mediate family of the employee. (Immediate family
is to be defined as parent, husband or wife, brother
or sister, child, grandparent, father-in-law, mother-
in-law, aunt, uncle, sister-in-law or brother-in-
law.)
A-50
d. In making deduction for excused absences not cov-
ered by sick leave, the deduction shall be 1/190
of the teacher’s contract for each day absent. The
deduction shall be made irrespective of whether it is
possible to employ a substitute or not.
e. Employees absent under leave provisions and bene-
fits will be fully responsible for the immediate
lesson plans, class lists, class books and seating
charts. Failure to provide these may be cause for
voiding the sick leave benefits.
f. When a teacher is exc!uded from school because of
quarantine and/or non-provoked assault imposed
as a result of contract brought about in the line of
duty, such teacher will be entitled to full pay with-
out loss of accumulated sick leave.
Emergency Leave
One day of emergency leave may be granted each year,
which is not cumulative. Deducted from the day’s sal-
ary will be the present substitutes pay schedule, Item
“e” under sick leave is also in effect. This leave shall
be used only in situations of urgency for the purpose
of conducting those affairs which are impossible to
transact after school hours or during weekends.
Educational Leave
Teachers granted a leave of absence to complete an ad-
vanced degree shall be eligible to receive $25.00 per
credit up to a maximum of $400.00 to be paid in in-
stallments of $200.00 at the end of the first semester of
the first two years, upon returning to the school system.
A-51
Professional Leave
Instructors may, with the approval of the Superintend-
dent, and concurrence of the Board, attend profession-
al conferences, workshops, institutes and other meetings
not scheduled in the school calendar.
The Board shall reimburse instructors for all reasonable
expenses incurred: i.e., transporation, lodging, meals,
and registration or other fees while on approved profes-
sional leave.
When it is evident that attendance or observation of
an activity in another school building or school system
will contribute to the effectiveness of the instructional
program, the Superintendent, with reasonable limita-
tions as to time and number of individuals involved,
may grant permission to observe an activity in another
school building or school system to instructors without
loss of pay.
The Association recognizes and supports a program of
surveillance and disciplinary action in any cases in-
volving misuse of leave benefits.
All benefits occurring under these leave policies will au-
tomatically expire at the effective resignation date or
termination of employment of any employee.
Working Conditions
Experience Allowed
Candidates with teaching experience elsewhere may be
hired at full credit or the administrative staff may place
the candidate at a lower than actual experience level
A-52
with the understanding such candidate shall be on sche-
dule the third contract.
Use of Teachers as Substitutes
An attempt will be made to employ substitute teachers
for a 1/2 or full day basis and a study will be con-
ducted to determine the number of times teachers are
called upon to substitute for special one hour periods.
Part Time Teacher Policy
Teachers hired for less than full time shall be allowed
the experience factor on the salary schedule identical to
their actual teaching time the previous year.
Work Day
Regu'ar building hours for teachers shall be eight (8)
per day, including a duty free lunch period of at least
thirty minutes. The starting and dismissal times which
may vary, shall be determined by the District. The above
statement to be in effect for the duration of the 1972-
1973 contract. It shall then be renegotiated or revert-
ed back to the 1971-1972 contract.
Assignments
Should a change in the teaching assignment from the
previous year become necessary for a particular teacher,
an attempt will be made to notify the teacher at least 30
days before the fall opening of school.
Various club and class advisors shall be assigned by the
administration and these tasks shall be without compen-
sation.
A-53
Assistance in Assault Cases
The Board will aid the teacher in situations as provided
under Wisconsin Statute 270.58.
Work Load
It is agreed to pay in addition to regular salary, an
hourly wage rate equal to 1/1330 of regular salary to
any junior or senior high school teacher who has been
scheduled an extra class assignment or a teaching work
load without a planning period per day on a regular
basis.
Dues Check-Off
Payment of Teachers dues and fees to Professional Or-
ganizations shall be deducted from teachers salary
through a check-off system to be agreed upon.
Professional Obligation
There are certain professional obligations to students,
parents, and school which are shared by all teachers,
including faculty meetings, conventions, school public
relations programs, etc. These obligations are to be met
by all teachers without compensation. Failure to meet
such professional obligations or to attend conventions
will result in loss of pay for days missed.
Instructor Evaluation
All monitoring or observation of the work performance
of an instructor shall be conducted openly and with his
full knowledge. The use of audio systems, or similar sur-
veillance devices shall be strictly prohibited. Evaluation
reports shall be made known to the instructor.
A-54
An legitimate complaints regarding an instructor made
to the Administration by any parent, student or other
person shall be promptly and privately called to such
instructor’s attention.
Faculty Lounge
The Board shall continue to make available in each
school building a room or rooms that are apprcpriately
furnished for use as a faculty lounge containing toilet
facilities.
Association Use of School Facilities
The Association shall be allowed to use school facilities
for Association business providing such usage does not
interfere with the educational program.
Non-Renewal of Contract
A teacher whose contract is not to be renewed for the
following school year shall be notified as required by law.
The teacher shall be informed of the reasons for his dis-
missal, in writing, and shall have the right to request a
hearing by the Board of Education. Such request must be
made in writing within five days after receipt of the notice
of dismissal. Teachers whose work is not satisfactory to
the administration and Board of Education may not receive
an annual increment.
Resignations
Thirty (30) days written notice prior to the effective
date of the resignation must be given and mutually accept-
ed by both parties. If the Board is unable to find a satis-
factory replacement, no release will be granted. Under
A-55
extenuating circumstances, the Superintendent may
waive such notice.
A teacher who becomes pregnant shall be required to re-
sign at the end of the fourth month of pregnancy or the
beginning of the semester if the periods generally coincide.
Depending upon health, doctor certification, and job re-
quirements, the Board may make adjustments to this pe-
riod based upon the recommendations of the Superinten-
dent.
Retirement
Teachers are to be retired at 65 years of age except that
the Board of Education may use their discretion on ex-
tension.
Savings Clause
Shall any portion of this contract be invalidated by leg-
islation or court decisions, the remainder the contract will
be effective, and the parts affected will coincide with the
new law.
School Calendar
The school calendar shall annually be set up by the
Board and referred to the Association for its review and
recommendation. The calendar shall then be set by the
Board of Education.
Salary Schedule and Extra Duty Pay
Appendix “A”
A-56
Duration
The provisions of this Agreement will be effective as of
the day of , 19—, and shall continue
and remain in full force and effect as binding on the par-
ties until the day of 19—. This
Agreement shall not be extended orally and it is expressly
understood that it shall expire on the date indicated.
Education Association Board of Education
By: By:
President President
By: By:
Secretary Secretary
A-57
(APPENDIX “A")
Salary Schedule
1972 = 1973
Teachers vorking more than the normal school year shall be paid for this extra
time at a rate set by the Board of Education. All other salaries shall be based on
the schedule except that in cases of emergency the Board may hire above the schedule
with the stipulation that the teacher be on schedule in two years.
Following is the basic schedule:
i 3 te i 6 . 9
-- - “+.
' --- ——
—
-—— ee
-' ' _ —— -
> 6450 ' 6643+ sear vanl on] 7m, 8385
————— me Qe ee ee ee —
1
ee: 9 {10 +} 22 | 12 j 13 14
= ee =
i '
| '
——— - ee t on ©} eae '
| | i
4 738075706 re jeaza| srg 9114) 9555' 9996| 10216+ 10437 | 10657+/ 10878'11098+ 11319.
24] 9 ee ee oe | -—— 4 ee —— 1 --
| \ :
‘ay 7600 , 7828 cm sem Ai se 9880 103361 10564 eee [nen 11476 11704 |
+
eam eae i
P 7850!8085+ lesz /e792 19263 |9734:10205/10676 10911+ une |2n3eae| 1608 11853+ 12089
—s
—— eee eee
4 8100 |e343 Loose, [sora] seh aned ose] 12016; 11259 "11502|11745 | 11988] 12291 | 12474
Ps
The following shall be added to the above basic schedule:
Hea? Basketball Coach...
Assistant Basketball Coach,
Head Football Coach ....
Assistant Football Coach. .
Head Baseball Coach ....
Head Wrestling Coach ...
Assistant Wrestling Coach .
Head Track Coach. .....
Assistant Track Coach...
Head Cross Country Coach, .
Junior High Coaches ....
Department Head and Multi-
Unit Leader -- lst year
-- 2nd year
-- 3rd year
+ means 50¢
$600.00
333.00
600.00
333.00
333.00
600.00
333.00
333,00
200.00
333.00
266.00
150,00
225.00
300,00
Musical (split-drama and choral). $100.00
Ome Act Phlay@ . «2c ee eee 67.00
Senior Class Play ....+e«++s+-s. 67.00
Outside Band Activities ..... 266.00
Porensics Head Coach. ....+. -« 133.00
Forensics Assistant Coach.... 100.00
MMO. see site eeeeeeses 200.00
Assistant Annual Director .... 100,00
Mewepepee . sw cece ee eeee 200.00
Migh Geeek GAA. «2 2 ce oe e 350.00
Jr. High School G.A.A, ..... 67.00
Teachers employed for periods longer than
the regular school year shall be paid at
a rate of $135.00 per week.
A-58
Miscellaneous Schedule
a. The Board of Education will pay 80% of major
medical insurance plan of Wisconsin Physicians
Service with a $40.00 per day hospital room, oral
surgery, and ambulance service.
b. Necessary travel in connection with any teaching
position shall be reimbursed at the rate of ten cents
(10¢) per mile upon a detailed itemized statement
submitted by the teacher and approved by the admin-
istration.
c. Salaries will be paid in twenty-four (24) installments
on the fifteenth (15th) and thirtieth (30th) of each
month during the school year and once each month
during June, July and August.
d. An increase of salary due to obtaining the bache-
lor’s or master’s degree or any step before, between, or
after, shall take place at the beginning of the next
fall term (September). The teacher shall advance one
step from their present experience level.
e. Reimbursement of credits earned will be paid at a
rate of $35.00 per credit to a maximum of $175.00
every five years for B.S. degree teachers and every sev-
en years for M.S. degree teachers.
f. Board shall pay the following to the State Teachers
Retirement Fund:
$125.00 - Those teachers on the 14th step or below.
$250.00 - Those teachers above the 14th step.
g. All teachers will be expected to perform five (5)
extra duties without pay as part of their regular sal-
A-59
ary. Any duties beyond five for the year will be paid
for according to the schedule below.
Extra Duty Pay Schedule as follows:
All supervisors at basketball and
wrestling events $10.00
All bus chaperones $10.00
Chaperones at dances following another
event $ 5.00
Chaperones at dances not following
another event $10 00
Football ticket sellers, downbox man,
football PA announcer, timers at
football, basketball and wrestling,
scorer at basketball and wrestling,
statistician at football games and
all chaperones for plays, musicals,
concerts, etc. $ 7.50
Individuals helping at track meets $ 5.00
Scouting in a sport other than the sport
the man is coaching. (Limit: Football-6,
Basketball-12) $10.00
All 7th through 12th teachers will be assigned athletic
meet responsibilities. Other activities assignments at
Jr. & Sr. High levels will be made at Jr. and Senior
High levels respectively.
h. All duties performed on NON-SCHOOL days shall
be paid at the rate of $2.25 per hour in addition to the
above schedule.
A-60
[EXHIBIT # 6, APRIL 9, 1974]
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Joint School Ditrict #1, Village of Hortonville, et al.
Hortonville, Wisconsin
CONTRACT
On the 12th day of March, 1973, the Board of Educa-
tion of Joint School District No. 1, hereinafter designated
School Board, of the Village of Hortonville, et. al., State of
Wisconsin, by resolution, hereby contracts with Thomas
Nadeau, hereinafter designated Teacher, a professionally
trained educator legally qualified in the State of Wisconsin.
The terms of said contract will commence on or about
the day of , 19—, which includes 190
contract days, of which 180 are teaching days.
For such services rendered, the said School Board is to
pay to said Teacher the sum of $11,382.50 in 24 install-
ments, payable on the 15th and 30th day of each
month.
It is Further Agreed, that this contract incorporates
herein by reference, to have the same effect as if made a
part thereof of the last collective bargaining agreement en-
tered into by and between the Hortonville Education As-
sociation, and said School Board, dated May 8, 1972, and
is subject to all terms and conditions of such collective
bargaining agreement. This contract is also subject to all
policies, rules or regulations of said School Board now ex-
isting not inconsistent or in conflict with said collective
bargaining agreement.
The parties understand and agree that this is a solemn,
binding contract not to be breached by either party with-
out good and sufficient grounds. The contract may be ter-
A-61
minated before the end of the term by mutual agreement
of both parties.
This contract is not valid unless returned on or before
April 15, 1973.
Dated this 12th day of March, 1973.
Hortonville, Wisconsin
BOARD OF EDUCATION
BY:
/s/ Roger Weihing
/s/ Robert Hauk
/s/ Merlin Plamann
/s/ Victor Schroth
/s/ Ronald C. Suprise
/s/ Floyd Meyer
/s/ Sherman J. Waite
I hereby accept the provisions as
set forth in this contract:
/s/ Thomas E. Nadeau
R#1
Hortonville, Wis.
By signing this contract, I attest
that I am not under contract to any
other school district.
A-62
[EXHIBIT # 7, APRIL 1974]
HEARING re: Striking Teachers, held before the Horton-
ville School Board, Monday, April 1, 1974, at 9:00 o’clock
a.m.
APPEARANCES: LATHROP & BRAITHWAITE,
148 E. Main Street,
Hortonville, Wisconsin
By James Ruhly, appearing for the
School Board
DONALD DICKINSON, Organiza-
tional Specialist,
2601 West College Avenue,
Appleton, Wisconsin,
representative of Wisconsin Educa-
tional Association Council,
222 West Washington Avenue,
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
by Bruce F. Ehlke, Esq.,
Lawton & Cates,
110 East Main Street,
Madison, Wisconsin 53703
Members of School Board:
Roger Weibing, President
Robert Hauk, Clerk
Floyd Meyer, Vice-President
Jean Meads, Board Member
Merlin Plamann, Treasurer
Victor Schroth, Board Member
Ronald Suprise, Board Member.
ag
A-63
MR. WEIHING: Counsel, will you proceed.
MR. RUHLY: The Board of Education has asked me
to read the following rules governing the conduct of to-
days proceedings:
1. Smoking of any sori is prohibited in the building.
2. Silence is requested unless request to speak is
granted. |
3. No picture-taking is permitted in this meeting
room.
4. Only the door furthest from where the members are
situated will be used, except in case of emergency,
when this door will be available.
5. The lavatory nearest this room is available for our
use. The Ladies room is out here, and the Mens
room is in the main office.
6. Persons not respecting these rules will be expected
to leave the premises immediately.
Is John Amburgy present?
MR. DONALD DICKINSON: I am Don Dickinson.
Mr. Amburgy is to be represented by Mr. Bruce F. Ehlke,
who has not yet arrived.
MR. RUHLY: Mr. Dickinson, do you know when Mr.
Ehlke will be arriving?
MR. DICKINSON: No, not exactly. I expect him at any
time. ‘
MR. RUHLY: Before proceeding, we requested Mr.
Amburgy who represents the Board as their private at-
torney, to appear.
A-64
MR. DICKINSON: | am waiting for Mr. Ehlke to ap-
pear.
MR. RUHLY: Was Mr. Ehlke aware of the hearing be-
ginning at 9:00 o’clock, Mr. Dickinson?
MR. DICKINSON: Did you have conversation with Mr.
Ehlke previously?
MR. RUHLY: I am asking you.
MR. DICKINSON: I don’t know.
MR. RUHLY: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board, I
am going to suggest that we continue this hearing for nine
minutes, in the hopes Mr. Ehlke will at that time be pres-
ent.
Mr. President, do you wish to take a vote, or will we ad-
journ the hearing until 9:15?
MR. WEIHING: At this time we will adjourn the hear-
ing to 9:15.
9:16 a.m. - MR. RUHLE: I would like the record to
reflect at this point, all of the Board Members are pres-
ent. Also present is MARVIN OBRY, Superintendent.
Mr. Dickinson, do you know where Mr. Ehlke is stay-
ing, so we can call him?
MR. DICKINSON: We have just sent someone out to
call him.
MR. RUHLE: Is JAMES OLSON present? Do you
represent Mr. Olson?
MR. DICKINSON: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: Does the same position stand with re-
spect to Mr. Olson?
MR. DICKINSON: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: Let the record show it is 9:18, that Mr.
Beryl Watson informs me he just spoke with Mr. Ehlke
who is just leaving Appleton at this time.
A-65
Mr. President, this puts us in a difficult position with
scheduling. However, I think it important that individu-
als involved have representatives of their choosing.
The only further question I have at this point, before
I make recommendation to the Board, is that I would like
Mr. Amburgy to indicate for the record whether the re-
quest made of Mr. Dickinson is as representative on his
behalf.
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Amburgy will answer through
counsel.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Amburgy refuses at this point to
respond to my question?
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Amburgy has empowered me,
in the absence of Mr. Ehlke, to speak to and for him, and
the teacher will wait until his counsel is available.
MR. RUHLE: Does that hold true for Mr. Olson also?
MR. DICKINSON: It does. |
MR. RUHLE: Mr. President, in view of the report with
respect to Mr. Ehlke just leaving Appleton, and in view
of the fact it is approximately a fifteen-minute drive from
Appleton, I would recommend that the Board further ad-
journ this hearing until 9:35 a.m., while we await Mr.
Ehlke’s arrival.
MR. WEIHING: Is there any objection from the Board
members? (none) We will adjorn this hearing until 9:45
a.m.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. President, it is 9:35. Can the record
show whether Mr. Ehlke has appeared yet? Mr. Dickinson,
is Mr, Ehlke here?
MR. DICKINSON: No, he is not.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. President, it is 9:40. Is Mr. Russell
Hildebrand here? (Yes).
A-66
Does Mr. Dickinson represent Mr. Hildebrand?
MR. DICKINSON: Yes, I do.
MR. RUHLE: Would Mr. Hildebrand like to proceed?
MR. DICKINSON: Mr. Hildebrand will await counsel.
MR. RUHLE: The same position as previously stated?
MR. DICKINSON: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. President, I would ask that the record
reflects it is 9:45 a.m., and we are still waiting for Mr.
Ehlke.
Let the record show it is 9:46% a.m., and Mr. Ehlke
has just arrived.
Mr. Ehlke, we would like to proceed, if we may.
MR. EHLKE: One prob!em I have, as I explained to
Mr. Dickinson, the shortness of time between the Notice of
these hearings which you have scheduled for this morning,
have placed somewhat of a burden on me, in order to be
able to talk to these people.
MR. RUHLE: May I proceed?
MR. EHLKE: What are we proceeding on?
MR. RUHLE: I would like the record to reflect proce-
dural matters.
MR. EHLKE: Then I would like to speak to Mr. Am-
burgy. He has contacted me by letter and I haven’t even
had a chance to speak to him. Are you going to deny me
that?
MR. RUHLE: I will permit you to make any statement
you wish. You have to'd us Mr. Amburgy has written
you asking you to represent him?
MR. EHLKE: I would like to have a chance to speak to
Mr. Amburgy.
MR. RUHLE: Are you prepared to advise us whether
Mr. Amburgy wants a hearing?
A-67
MR. EHLKE: I don’t know.
MR. RUHLE: You aren’t prepared to let us know
that?
MR. EHLKE: I don’t know, I haven't talked to the
man.
MR. RUHLE: Would you speak to the man with the
question whether he wishes a public or private hearing?
We have held the meeting up for approximately 45 min-
utes, and we would like to be advised how you wish to
proceed.
MR. EHLKE: As I told you on the phone yesterday,
this matter has been going on for two weeks, and I don’t
take it lightly at all that these people should be served with
a Notice two days ago. I would like to talk to Mr. Am-
burgy.
MR. RUHLE: All right. It’s 9:50 and Mr. Ehlke is go-
ing to speak to his client.
MR. EHLKE: I would like to speak with a number of
people. We could retire from this room.
MR. RUHLE: Whatever you are requesting. If you
wou!d like to have five minutes or more, we would leave
the room, if it would be more convenient for you.
MR. EHLKE: It would be more convenient for me.
MR. RUHLE: I understand you will address the ques-
tions to a public nature and you can address yourself to
us. We will be checking back in at 10:00 o’clock, Mr.
Ehlke.
(10:10 o’clock am.)
MR. RUHLE: Miss Reporter, will you note that it is
now 10:07 and we have returned to the room. Mr. Ehlke,
I read an opening sentence earlier, in your absence. I
would like to re-read that into the record.
A-68
“The purpose of this hearing is to ascertain the rele-
vant facts regarding recent alleged conduct by
Before proceeding. we request that counsel please advise
the Board if a private hearing is requested in this matter.”
Are you prepared to report to that, Mr. Ehlke?
MR. EHLKE: Yes. On behalf of Mr. Amburgy and all
the teachers in this room, they have received a Notice
which says that the Board of Education has been informed
by Superintendent Obry, that since March 18th of 1974,
you have breached your employment contract and engaged
in unlawful strike. Each person got the same notice, ex-
cept some of them had white backing and some had b!ue
backing. Now there are other teachers outside that did
not receive a notice of such a hearing. As far as all the
teachers who received notice of the hearing goes, they want
to have an open meeting. That includes Mr. Amburgy, of
course. Furthermore, inasmuch as everybody has been
charged with the same thing, this meeting should apply
to all of them, not just Mr. Amburgy.
MR. RUHLE: We are concerned as I said, at this time,
with Mr. Amburgy, and it is true that identical notices
with this @pecific data as to time of hearing, were sent to
most of the teachers in the District.
Now with respect to Mr. Amburgy, I would like the rec-
ord to reflect that in answer to the statement made by me
earlier, Mr. Amburgy is not requesting a private hearing.
Specifically this hearing is concerned with whether Mr. Am-
burgy breached his individual employment contract, en-
gaged in unlawful strike contrary to Wisconsin law. Mr.
Amburgy was advised of this hearing and the allegations
in a notice signed by Board President Weihing at the
Board’s direction on March 29, 1974, and served on March
29th, 1974 as shown by Proof of Service.
A-69
After the Board has had the evidence relevant to the
allegations, the Board will determine whether Mr. Ambur-
gy is guilty of the alleged conduct. If the Board finds he is
guilty, it will consider what discipline, if any, is appro-
priate under the circumstances.
The Board has requested me to conduct this hearing
and elicit evidence relevant to the allegations enumerated.
My name is James Ruhly.
Would Mr. Amburgy or his counsel please state the ap-
pearances on Mr. Amburgy’s behalf at this time?
Mr. Ehlke, I understand your previous position. I would
like the record to reflect who is appearing at this time for
Mr. Amburgy.
MR. EHLKE: My name is Bruce F. Ehlke, of the firm
of Lawton & Cates, and I am representing all individual
teachers in this room who are appearing pursuant to this
Notice from the Board of Education which is dated March
29th.
At this time I feel it is only fair that I advise the Board
what I advised Mr. Ruhle of yesterday. That is, if you
are going to hold hearings on discharge, it has to be a
hearing that meets constitutionary due process of law.
That means an individual or individuals on the line have
to be given fair notice of the charges against them and fair
chances also to defend themselves against those charges,
and that means opportunity to contact a lawyer if that is
appropriate under the circumstances. And it is, in this case,
because Mr. Ruhle is sitting there for the Board, he is
acting as the Board’s spokesman. You have to give them a
fair chance to prepare their defense and furthermore, the
individual or individuals have the right that they only be
tried before a Judge or Tribunal that is fair and impar-
.
A-70
tial in the situation at hand. It certainly, I don’t think,
can be held that the Board of Education is appearing as an
impartial tribunal when you consider what we are talking
about—a labor dispute and the Board is employer, and you
are talking of punishing folks because of this dispute.
Second, we want a fair and impartial tribunal.
I do understand correctly, Mr. Ruhle, do I not, that you
are hired and retained by the Board of Education in this
matter?
MR. RUHLE: Correct.
MR. EHLKE: And I understand Mr. Braithwaite is
aiso present in the room today?
MR. RUHLE: Correct.
MR, EHLKE: Who also was hired and retained by the
Board of Education?
MR. RUHLE: Correct.
MR. WEIHING: I am asking the men with cameras to
leave the room. If they wish to come back in without cam-
eras, they can do so.
MR. EHLKE: I guess what I’m telling you is that we
have a very serious problem to the Boards proceeding in
this matter under the circumstances here. I have a couple
other questions too. Assuming that if we are just here to
sit and talk and not sitting here to judge anybody which
would be the other alternative—have the proper notices
gone out. Is this properly called the School Board meeting?
MR. WEIHING: We are here not to just talk, we are
here to consider the matters set forth on the notices served
on the teachers.
MR. EHLKE: I would like an answer to my question.
MR. RUHLE: I am not giving you an answer to the
question.
A-71
MR. EHLKE: Then we have a question of whether you
are sitting as Judge here, or having a meeting with you?
MR. WEIHING: We are conducting a hearing to deter-
mine the answers to the questions.
MR. EHLKE: Mr. Ruhle gave me a tentative answer
and that is, these notices prior to their being sent out to
individual employees, was this noticed to the Union or is
this a unilateral notice to employees represented by the
Union?
Mr. Wisniewski, you are President of the Union?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Yes.
MR. EHLKE: Did tne Board give you notification of this
matter?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: None whatsoever.
MR. EHLKE: What were the means by which you
learned of this action against the employees, individuals
you represent?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Some of the teachers bringing in
letters.
MR. EHLKE: So you got notice through the individu-
als?
MR. WISNIEWSKI: Right.
MR. EHLKE: I don’t know what you folks are trying
to do here, but it seems to me that you have to know and
understand that you are in a labor relations setting; that
your obligation in that setting is to deal with the represen-
tatives of the employees and to at least keep that repre-
sentative advised of actions you might take against indi-
viduals represented by this organization. Furthermore, it
seems to me you have scheduled three days of so-called
hearings in a matter concerning your present labor dis-
pute with the organization and the employees it represents,
A-72
and you have done this at a time, as I understand it,
when you find it difficult to sit down and bargain with the
Union and settle your dispute. In every one of this
kind of dispute I have been involved in, whether it be city
employees in Superior, Tennessee or Kentucky, wherever,
the only place you are going to settle this with your em-
ployees is to meet at the bargain table, and a meeting
like this is a waste of time and you will not reach agree-
ment under that kind of action. There are problems. Some-
how you are going to accomplish your initiative even by
permitting people to parade out in front. There is serious
question of the lawfulness of the Board sitting at this
time, in arriving at this labor dispute. These are questions
that are raised because the Constitution of the United
States tells us that a man is going to lose his job—and
that’s what I understand vou are talking about—these no-
tices. He is entit'ed to a hearing tefore a neutral body.
and we certainly don’t have that here, because these are
your emplovees and your d’snute concerns a difference
between the two of you. It’s sort of like asking me to sit
as a Judge in a dispute between myself and my former
wife—and Ill tell you that was a simpler matter and re-
solved in a simpler manner than this thing.
We also have a problem that the Board didn’t even
notify the Union of this action, So what’s wrong with sit-
ting down and targainirg? That's where vou’re going
to settle the dispute. You can be as angry as all get out
and have all kinds of principles about work action that is
involved here, but that isn’t going te solve vour differences.
Now if you insist on having a hearing today, and you
think that’s semehow gains to accemplish something. all
right. but it’s going to be a hearing that all of these people
are tried as a group.
A-73
May I have a ruling, Mr. Speaker?
MR. RUHLE: I am not speaking.
MR. EHLKE: Incidentally, when were you retained?
MR. RUHLE: Friday.
MR. EHLKE: And suddenly we have to have a hearing
on Monday?
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, the procedures utilized by
the Board are not the issue here. You have stated your ob-
jections, you will have your opportunity to argue on them.
The Board at this time is not going to make judgment on
the questions you have raised, unless you have something
specific you want to ask us with reference to the proceed-
ing here.
MR. EHLKE: I am asking you to respond right now
in relation to what I said.
MR. RUHLE: What are you asking us to do?
MR. EHLKE: Meet and bargain.
MR. RUHLE: This hearing wasn’t designed for the
purpose of considering that question. Let me ask you this.
You have had opportunity to speak with your clients?
MR. EHLKE: This meeting can be whatever you want
it to be.
MR. RUHLE: And the board has set this meeting to
hear, to determine whether certain allegations are true.
That’s the purpose of the meeting, sir.
MR. EHLKE: That's the alleged purpose of the meet-
ing, and that’s what you said. What I bring before you
is a fact, the only way to solve these peoples’ dispute is
to meet and bargain. Aind I put that on the table.
MR. RUHLE: After that, the Board will consider that.
You have indicated you have not had specific time to
prepare. Will you make that more specific?
A-74
MR. EHLKE: Why are some people here this morning
with white and blue backed notices, and others have not?
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, if you have objection to the
way the Board has served notices, you are free to so state.
MR. EHLKE: It is your contention to serve one of these
things on each individual employee of the district?
MR. RUHLE: That is not true.
MR. EHLKE: There are some that aren’t going to be
here?
MR. RUHLE: That’s right.
MR. EHLKE: And what are the reasons?
MR. RUHLE: That, it seems to me, isn’t the present
issue. I am not going to digress this meeting to examina-
tion of what the Board has done. The teachers have all
struck in vio'ation of hours and violation of their employ-
ment contract. We would like to have whatever is rele-
vant to that.
MR. EHLKE: And I suggest we meet and bargain.
MR. RUHLE: The parties are in mediation but we
aren’t going to abandon the hearings tecause you have
made another suggestion. Are you preparing to meet
with Mr. Amburgy. )
MR. EHLKE: Are any other meetings scheduled?
MR. RUHLE: There are none scheduled. That isn’t
the issue, Mr. Ehlke. Are you prepared to proceed with
Mr. Amburgy?
MR. EHLKE: We can’t bargain because there is med-
iation pending.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, are you prepared to pro-
ceed with Mr. Amburgy, Mr. Olson and Mr. Hildebrand?
MR. EHLKE: And all the other teachers?
MR. RUHLE: I would want to discuss with the Board
A-75
the implications of proceeding on the basis of all teachers
that have thus far been served, in one hearing. I am not
prepared to tell you whether we can proceed on that basis.
I would also like to speak with you prior to making a
decision on that.
MR. EHLKE: Well, it seems to me, Jim, it’s your meet-
ing. You will have to make the decision what you will
want to do with your time. Do you want us to step out
while you talk to the Board?
MR. RUHLE: No, that won’t be necessary. We will
step out if you need to caucus, Mr. Ehlke. Let me ask you
again, are you prepared to proceed with Mr. Amburgy—
having a hearing with Mr. Amburgy?
MR. EHLKE: First, we aren’t going to have a hearing
with just Mr. Amburgy. Second, I’m as prepared relative
to Mr. Amburgy as other people who have received one
of these things.
MR. RUHLE: These ‘things’, indicating Notices.
MR. EHLKE: The third thing is, it is your meeting,
Jim, and I’m not sure exactly if the Boards’ position is
where it won’t bargain, but wants to spend three days in
some kind of proceeding which is meaningless as far as
settling the dispute. I don’t know what your intentions are
on how you wou!d proceed, so to that extent I don’t know
what kind of preparation would be required. I just would
have to see what your contentions are before I could real-
ly answer you, give you a realistic answer as to what fur-
ther preparation we might need. We have some prepara-
tion, and it is our position that in part the present work
dispute is just between management people and the Board
of Education are employers—it is resolved of conduct on
the part of management and that would become a matter
A-76
of issue and we would put in evidence in that regard. Oth-
er than that, you will have to tell us what your thoughts
are and what you want to do.
May I have a few minutes, Mr. Chairman?
MR. WEIHING: Sure.
MR. EHLKE: As I said before, Jim, everybody is here
now. You have the full Board for the first time in weeks,
at least meeting with all these people and employees.
The problem is the Collective Bargaining Agreement, and
that’s where some agreement has to be reached. What’s
wrong with bargaining right now?
We have our lawyer here, we're just wasting time.
Can’t you get back to the table? You have parents here
and kids throughout the whole place.
You bargain for three days and you're going to have an
agreement. You screw around with this for three days and
you'll have nothing. Can’t we get this thing settled?
MR. RUHLE: Is Mr. Amburgy here? If so, I would like
to ask him a few questions.
MR. EHLKE: This is a labor dispute, Mr. Ruhle, and
you should know you are putting yourself in a position,
and this is what I was kind of afraid of—you’re going to
call individual employees and interrogate them as to their
position and that is unlawful. I am going to instruct all my
clients to refuse to answer any questions posed by you in
this matter. If you have any questions, you ask the Union,
not the individual's. It’s clear you are trying to circumvent
when you start to ask individuals. If you have any ques-
tions, pose them to the Union.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehtke. I have a limited number of
questions I would like to ask Mr. Amburgy.
MR. EHLKE: I am sure you do.
A-77
MR. RUHLE: And I would request that Mr. Ambur-
gy be permitted to answer those questions.
MR. EHLKE: No.
MR. RUHLE: Does the same hold true of Mr. Olson—
please don’t interrupt me. I have, I think, attempted not
to interrupt you, and I will appreciate your not interrupt-
ing me. Is Mr. Olson prepared to answer questions I
would like to ask him?
MR. EHLKE: Mr. Ruhle, you by-passed the Union
when you noticed this matter: you refused to meet and
bargain with them, and now you are planning to ask each
individual employee questions regarding this major dis-
pute? You should know better than that, Mr. Ruhle.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, you aren’t refusing to meet
and bargain. It would appear to me you are advising your
clients not to answer.
MR. EHLKE: Because it’s unlawful for counsel for the
employer to interrogate and question employees regarding
a labor dispute.
MR. RUHLE: Counsel's categorization of the questions
I wish to ask is not accurate. Let the record further note,
Mr. Ehlke, that you have available forum in which to pre-
sent any claims you want to present with respect to wheth-
er what the board is doing is lawful or unlawful.
MR. EHLKE: That won't dissolve the dispute that is di-
viding these people right now. The way to dissolve the dis-
pute right now is to bargain.
MR. RUHLE: Is Mr. Hildebrand here?
MR. EHLKE: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: I would like the record to show who is
here and who might not be. Is Mr. Jeffers here?
MR. EHLKE: Yes.
A-78
MR. RUHLE: Is Mr. Hildebrand prepared to answer
questions?
MR. EHLKE: This answer is the same, because it is
highly improper and unlawful for you to interrogate em-
ployees.
MR. RUHLE: I appreciate your stating it for the nine-
teenth time.
MR. EHLKE: I told you you are going to get the same
answer in each case.
MR. RUHLE: They will not answer the questions the
Board would like to ask—is that your position?
MR. EHLKE: No, because it is improper, Mr. Ruhle.
This is a dispute.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Jeffers’ hearing was set for 10:00;
Mr. Johnson’s for 10:20. Is Mr. Johnson present?
MR. EHLKE: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: And Mr. Kreul’s hearing was set for
10:40. Is Mr. Kruel present?
MR. EHLKE: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: I take it that counsel is directing those -
employees not to answer questions that I might want to ask
them, going to the purpose of this hearing?
MR. EHLKE: Yes, for the same reasons I have already
given you—harrassment and interrogation is unlawful.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehler, I want the record to reflect
the Board strongly disagrees that the questions, or the pur-
pose for the questions we intend to ask, or the purpose of
this hearing, are unlawful. I think you should be advised of
that. Mr. Ehlke, perhaps—
MR. EHLKE. There is no sense in litigating the ques-
tion of interference, coercion of employees acting collec-
tively. I don’t understand. Mr. Ruhle, what you have
against bargaining.
A-79
MR. RUHLE: We have nothing against bargaining.
This Board has never refused to bargain and it does not
so refuse now. But we aren’t prepared to bargain because
we have other matters scheduled.
MR. EHLKE: Would you like to take another break? As
I understand, Mr. Ruhle, you are not only acting as counsel
in this case, but do I understand your firm also repre-
sents bargaining?
MR. RUHLE: I have not been retained to bargain.
MR. EHLKE: The Chief spokesman for the Board then,
is Mr. Weihing?
MR. RUHLE: The chief spokesman for the Board is
Mr. Brown and is including Mr. Braithwaite. We are not
going to adjourn this meeting for the purpose of negotia-
tion. We have schedules here. We would like to know if
your people are going to cooperate in these hearings.
MR. EHLER: What is the purpose of hearings?
MR. RUHLE: The notice was served on each teacher,
it could not be more succinctly stated. We have three more
people scheduled for hearings this morning.
MR. EHLKE: Who are they?
MR. RUHLE: Miss Rosemarie Lauer. Is she present?
MR. EHLKE: Yes, she is.
MR. RUHLE: Would Miss Lauer like to proceed with
her hearing at this time?
MR. EHLKE: The answer is going to be the same in
every case, Jim.
MR. RUHLE: Can we call her matter at 10:47?
MR. EHLKE: You are pushing us on the time now. You
gave us 20 minutes to defend our livelihood, and now
you’re going to take away even that.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, we are here today to see what
A-80
the teachers have to say about the allegations that have
been made. You don’t need to deprive them of that oppor-
tunity. Counse! has asked them not to make statements.
MR. EHLKE: Are we here to settle a labor Jispute or
are we here to intimidate? What are we here for?
MR. RUHLE: To ascertain whether certain allegations
are true, It has a responsibility in that area to all em-
ployees. It is in the pursuit of known reports this morn-
ing.
MR. EHLKE: Wouldn’t it be right to say given the
time, the opportunity, is to settle this dispute and get the
people back to work?
MR. RUHLE: The Board did not go on strike. The
Board did not cause closing of school for several weeks.
We are here to see who did go on strike.
MR. EHLKE: If you know who did, why are you ask-
ing us?
MR. RUHLE: I would like each teacher to tell us
whether they have a statement to make to the Board be-
fore the Board determines what disciplinary action, if any,
is appropriate.
MR. EHLKE: Is that going to settle the dispute? Is that
going to unchain the school doors—put the people tack to
work?
MR. RUHLE: Mr. President, Miss Lauer did not answer,
or counsel did not consent to calling her matter prior to
11:00 o’clock. Therefore I would suggest that we wait and
ca'l that matter at 11:00 o’clock.
MR. EHLKE: And I would suggest that the Board con-
sider bargaining. Because of this thing this morning, the
Board has two lawyers present. the Union and people it
represents individually and as an organization, has a law-
yer present.
A-81
MR. RUHLE: Are we on the record? I think we should
be off the record until 11:00 o’clock.
* * *
MR. RUHLE: Back on the record. Mr. Ehlke and I
have had the ten-minute discussion off-the-record, and
Mr. Ehlke is going to discuss with his clients that are
present, the manner in which they wish to proceed, the
question being raised because it is possible that his clients
will on-the-record stipulate—at least those that have been
served—that they received some advice from their coun-
sel, which advice they do accept, and that it will not be
necessary for the Board to call hearings at 11:00,
11:20, 11:40, and on into the afternoon and evening, Mr.
Ehlke has a list of employees involved. I don’t have a list,
Bruce. I liave copies of the notices. Any of your clients
that have hearing for Tuesday and Wednesday, if they
wish to handle it that way, state it on the record. If there
are any who do not wish to handle it that way, we can
handle it tomorrow and Wednesday.
MR. EHLKE: O.K. We believe it can be better handled
by reaching an agreement.
(Adjournment: 11:00 a.m., to 11:53 a.m.)
CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD: Let the record show
we are back in session at 11:53, and that I requested
camera men to also stop their cameras at this time.
MR. RUHLE: Were you both present during the time
the rules of these proceedings were read?
MR. EHLKE: I wasn’t present at the time the proceed-
ings were read, unless we’re talking about something dif-
ferent, Jim.
MR. RUHLE: At the commencement of this hearing,
rules were read which included no filming or picture-tak-
A-82
ing is permitted in this hearing room. We again request
that you gentlemen not film while this matter is in prog-
ress.
MR. EHLKE: I can’t speak for members of the press.
MR. RUHLE: There are other rules that apparently
you were not here when they were read, and I would like
you to have a copy of those.
MR. EHLKE: I have just been handed a copy of six
rules for the hearing held in April, 1974. The rules are
1. Smoking of any sort is prohibited in the building; 2.
Silence is required unless one is asked to speak; 3. No
filming or picture-taking is permitted in this hearing room.
This is for the benefit of folks who weren’t here earlier;
4. Only the door furthest from where the board is sitting
will be used; 5. Only the lavatory services nearest this
room are available for use; 6. Persons not respecting these
rules will be permitted to leave the premises immediate-
ly. Was the rule not to take pictures?
MR. RUHLE The rule was not so limited. Gentlemen,
are you going to insist on remaining and filming?
VOICE: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: I suggest we adjourn the proceedings for
a few minutes. If Mr. Ehlke wishes to be heard on that,
let’s hear his position.
MR. EHLKE: I have not had any position from mem-
bers of the Press and I don’t know what their intentions or
purpose is relative to taking pictures—interviewing, or
whatever. You did ask me on these various individuals and
I suggest we get on with the hearing. Maybe we should
be bargaining.
MR. WEIHING: I grant counsel’s request that we ad-
journ for a few minutes.
* * *
A-83
MR. RUHLE: Let the record show we are back into
session at 12:09. Let the record also show in that 15 min-
ute caucus, the Board re-evaluated the rule. We think that
there is a legitimate interest in the media. We notice
that there are not the lights which we feared would be a
problem and if those people present, and counsel has no
objection to the filming of the proceedings, we have no ob-
jection.
Now did you have a position, Mr. Ehlke, that you want-
ed to state, or are we back on the question of how to han-
dle the hearings that are scheduled from 11:90 o’clock
on?
MR. EHLKE: Position relative to what? You mean the
media?
MR. RUHLE: No. You were going to speak with your
people, whether we sit here all day and evening to handle
the people as they came up. Have you made determina-
tion as to how you wish to proceed on that?
MR. EHLKE: Yes, I have conferred with the indivi-
duals who have written to me asking Lawton & Cates to
represent them in this matter in matters arising out of
this dispute. Incidentally, not all of the people have
asked us to represent them, but Tonia Stamborski hasn’t
asked us to represent her in the dispute, but the other teach-
ers have. They are as follows, and they are also individu-
als who have been served. I will read these names: John
Amburgy, James Olson, Russ Hildebrand, Peter Jef-
fers, Darrell Johnson, Paul Kreul, Rosemarie Lauer, Tom
Nadeau, Nanay Olson—incidentally, it’s Mrs. Michael Ol-
son, not Dennis Olson; Lila Nelson, Robert Newhouse,
James O’Hern, Ruth Qualmann, John Quinn, Michael
Ratsch, Rosemarie Olsen, Ardis Dobberstein, Kathleen
A-84
Weyenberg, Leslie Ellis, Carol Gruetzmacher, Ryan
Hmielewski, James Larget, Carol Hoffman. Winifred
Laabs, Ken Couillard, Donna Couillard, Ruby Aben-
droth, Marilyn Zimmer, Avis Sasse, David Hanke, Pat
Grall, Michael Wisnoski, Linda Sue Bradley, David Emer-
ich, Richard Fraaza, Dave Hettiger, Kay Jacobson, Rus-
na Keller, Tharen Robson, Kathleen Wilson, Ray Emer-
ich, Richard Fraaza. Dave Hettiger, Kay Jacobson, Rus-
sel Lichte, Wilhelmine Pollard, Jack Rickaby, Ethel Bey-
er, Laura Cleven, Esther Emling, Nancy Miller, Elaine
Exenberger, Mabel Grummer, Kathryn Herb, Sandra Her-
wig, Eleana Jurkowski, Mary Keller, Lois Lukesh, Susan
Sachs, Carolyn Suess, Joy Vaitfhiel, John Stieves, Edward
Weber, Linda Wiegandt, Mildred Eisenreich, Ronald
Hammond, Edith Haupt, Quintin Thede, Betty Edler,
John Schindhelm, Catherine Schnoir, Karen Zeinert, Jean
Wall, Kenneth Mertons, Judy Murphy, Patricia Weber,
Jerry Addie, Gwendoline Alexander, Ruth Bruzewitz,
Eleanor Krause and Jean Larson. All of those individuals
have asked that I represent them in this particular mat-
ter; all those individuals have been served with this notice
thing with either a blue backing or a white backing. As I
understand it, there are as I have indicated—
MR. RUHLE: May I ask for two clarifications on that
list. The name of that woman is Linda Thielke. Also, I
have another question.
MR. EHLKE: I just checked my files and Linda Thiel-
ke has not requested that Lawton & Case represent her rela-
tive to the labor dispute, and I have been further informed
that this lady is a part time teacher. Apparently the Union
was unaware of her—she apparently doesn’t have a writ-
ten contract. To my knowledge she is not present, and I
ee ene Been ee
A-85
know that she has not requested us to represent her. Which
is also the case, of course, with Tonia Stamborski.
MR. RUHLE: I would like to also clarify Miss Triolo.
MR. EHLKE: To my knowledge, she is not present to-
day.
MR. RUHLE: In any event, you did not mean to
read that you represented her.
MR. EHLKE: No, I read the names of the people I
represent that are here today. Yes, Carlarae Triolo has re-
quested that we represent her, but she isn’t here today, to
my knowledge. Also Thomas Bellaire and Nancy Miller
have asked us to represent them in this dispute, and they
also to my knowledge are not present today, and to my
knowledge have not been served with any kind of notice
that they should come over today. And the same would
be true with Mrs. Triola.
MR. RUHLE: Let the record show that Nancy Miller,
Thomas Bellair and Mrs. Stamborski have not been served
with notice.
MR. EHLKE: Weis is her maiden name—Stambor-
ski is her married name.
MR. RUHLE: Mrs. Ballaire and Nancy Miller have re-
quested that you keep them?
MR. EHLKE: Yes, but they haven’t been served.
MR. RUHLE: Yes, and Mrs. Triola to my knowledge,
has not been served. Mr. Ehlke, I don’t mean to inter-
rupt, but—
MR. EHLKE: That what I just related to you are the
names of the individuals who have requested that I rep-
resent them and who are present today, and I have spoken
to those individuals relative to proceeding in this mat-
ter, and each of them individually has indicated to me their
A-86
desire to follow my advice. This present matter and ques-
tioning by counsel for management in this labor dispute is
coercive, is an interrogation, and the matters which are,
management has informed it needs relative to who was
working and not working, who was locked out and not
locked out, and all that stuff. Any other questions would
be interference with the individual’s rights, and any other
questions management may have concerning the dispute,
should be addressed to representatives of the Union who
represents all of these people, and indeed, your represen-
tatives stand ready right now to meet in bargaining agree-
ment with the Board. If one-tenth of the effort that has
been put into this hearing so far would be put into bar-
gaining, we would be much closer to agreement than we
are right now.
MR. RUHLE: Let's see if I properly understand here.
MR. EHLKE: We want to bargain.
MR. RUHLE: Do the individual teachers that you
named wish to have their particular hearing called now
so that they may respond, or so that you may respond on
their behalf, so they would not answer questions, and so
forth?
MR. EHLKE: We have already indicated, everybody
got the same form, and they are all charged with the
same thing. They have consulted and conferred among
themselves and concurred that they have done or not done
the same things, all of which would be within the knowl-
edge of the management, and accordingly, they al] stand
together, and I represent all of them who I have indicated
who are present today, and we believe if you are going
to have a hearing and want to proceed, you proceed in
all of the cases in one hearing, because they all involve
A-87
the same matters, and an attempt to single them out
would be highly inappropriate. If you want to settle a
matter, the thing not to do is pick out individuals. You
sit down at the bargaining table and bargain. So we don't
know what’s on your mind, other than you certainly have
as much knowledge of it as we do. If you want to proceed
on hearing, it will be a hearing involving all these matters
together.
MR. RUHLE: Have your clients authorized you to
waive for them, to proceed in the matter in which the man-
ner the Board has notified them the Board is proceeding?
MR. EHLKE: I think they have, but I would like to
confirm it.
MR. RUHLE: I am concerned that the record shows
that the individual teachers whom you have indicated you
represent and have been served—and I am orly talking
about those individuals—waived their rights to the indivi-
dual hearing as scheduled by the Board; they waived their
right to make a statement to the Board; that they refused
to answer questions that counsel might ask them in the
manner in which they have been notified we were pro-
ceeding; and further that the Board may draw any infer-
ences permitted by law for the Board to draw, based on
their refusal to answer questions asked of them. I don’t
want to argue with you.
MR. EHLKE: I don’t want to argue with you either, I
just want to say that questioning—that’s the reason why
the general public thinks poorly of lawyers, because we are
sitting here counting angels on a pinhead.
I will ask them questions and we will be back with
you in about three minutes. I think this is beginning to be a
lot of nonsense, and I am embarrassed for my profession.
A-88
MR. RUHLE: I am also sorry those present don’t um
derstand what we are attempting to do.
MR. EHLKE: You can argue what you are attempting
to do. The question is, why don’t you folks think about
bargaining? As I understand it, you are prepared to sit
here a few days, so why not take a shot for a couple hours
this afternoon?
(Adjournment from 12:30 to 12:43 noon.)
MR. EHLKE: Is the Board ready?
MR. RUHLE: Yes.
MR. EHLKE: I consulted with my clients and we have
discussed whether or not they wish to have a single hear-
ing if you insist on going ahead with the thing on individu-
al hearings. I have asked them if they understand rela-
tive to answering questions, and further we have discussed
implications of their refusing to answer your questions,
and with respect to refusing to answer your questions they
have again repeated that they wish to follow my advice
and not answer questions because of their interrogatory
nature, and under the present circumstances the problem
that exists, with questions by counsel from management
being coercion and harrassment in a labor dispute such
as this, they want the Union to answer questions for
them, if you have questions. As far as the ramifications
of their refusing to answer questions, I have conferred with
Mr. Ruhle, and he has confirmed my understanding, and
I have so discussed it with my clients, that the impli-
cation Mr. Ruhle referred to was that if these people do
not answer questions propounded by Mr. Ruhle, it might
be concluded they are engaged in a work stoppage, and
that as I understand it, is the only inference that may be
permitted in answer to the charges set forth in this docu-
A-89
ment which is either bluebacked or white-backed notice
of the thing today. There is in that charge, the sentence
reads: “You have breached your individual employment
contract—you have engaged or participated in an unlaw-
ful strike contrary to Wisconsin law’, and I would
point out regardless whatever facts or inferences you
folks think you might draw of failure of these people to
respond to questions, that only goes to fact, the fact of
breaching a contract is a legal question, and no individu-
al can testify to that as a fact. Nor can any legal conclu-
sion be drawn from a factual inference, and the same
holds true with respect to illegality of a strike.
So again these people have advised me they will not
answer questions for the reasons I have repeated over and
over again.
They have also advised me to advise you that they wish,
since they are all charged with the same thing, any hearing
you wish to have should involve all of them and they don’t
wish to have individual hearings. As I understand it, in-
dividual hearings that have been scheduled would run
through Wednesday and the evenings, and these people
would much rather see the Board spending its time
and the time of representatives of these employees, attempt-
ing to negotiate, to bargain in agreement, and to get this
thing settled.
MR. RUHLE: Did I understand correctly previously
when you went through the list of teachers that you repre-
sent, those were employees who had been served, with
the exception you do represnt Mr. Bellaire, you represent
one Mrs. Stamborski and Nancy Miller who are teachers
who have not been served, is that correct?
MR. EHLKE: No, that is not correct. I have been asked
A-90
by Mr. Bellaire and Nancy Miller to represent them. They
have not been served relative to any of these mectings or
whatever we are doing this morning, Tuesday and Wednes- —
day. Accordingly, my clients, Bellaire and Nancy Miller
are not present for that reason. Mrs. Stamborski hasn’t
requested my representation or representation of Lawton
and Cates. Mrs. Carlarae Triolo on the other hand has
requested that we represent her in the dispute and fur-
thermore I understand that she has been served with a
document, I don’t know if white or blue backing, but she
has been served with a notice regarding these things we
are doing at the present time. However, I have been un-
able to speak with Mrs. Triolo because she is a part time
teacher and as i understand it, spends half her week work-
ing in a different school district and presently employed
working at her other job, and as a result isn’t available
and hasn’t been available to talk to me in the present
proceedings, although she has asked me to represent her.
MR. RUHLE: With respect to Mrs. Triolo, would you
agree to contact her and see if she takes the same posi-
tion your other clients take, and notify us of that? If we
have not heard from you, we will be present at 11:30 on
Wednesday. What I want to do is see if we can find some
acceptable way to not convene if Mrs. Triolo wishes to be
represented.
MR. EHLKE: With that knowledge, we agree to do
that, and I will make an attempt to do that in the next
hour or two or as soon as the present proceedings are
adjourned or whatever. Again, the reason we are inter-
ested in expediting these things, if you scheduled this much
time to have hearings, it seems to me we have an ideal
situation to spend some time bargaining. If we can shorten
up the hearings, as I understand your schedule, at least
A-91
the rest of the day until 10:30 and Tuesday and Wednes-
day you have scheduled yourselves for school meets, and
this would be a real good time to settle your bargaining
problem. That’s the only thing that’s ever going to settle
your dispute and you have a good chance to do it now.
MR. RUHLE: For clarification, Bruce, it was also your
representation that those teachers, the names of which you
read off, are present today, is that correct?
MR. EHLKE: Right. Mrs. Triolo was the only one
served with a document who isn’t present today, and that’s
because of her other employment.
MR. RUHLE: And you will let us know if she wants to
have a hearing on Wednesday at 11:30?
MR. EHLKE: Right.
MR. RUHLE: And if she does, her position will be the
same as your other clients?
MR. EHLKE: Yes.
MR. RUHLE: I have nothing else. Does anyone have
anything else for the record? If not, I think the President
can adjourn—
MR. EHLKE: Just a second. Let me think about it.
Can I take five minutes to consult in the hallway?
MR. RUHLE: Sure.
MR. EHLKE: My first question is, in effect, because
of the Board’s involvement as to managment of this
School District and its involvement in the labor dispute
which is the basis for the board’s consideration, but hard
for a neutral tribunal and some disinterested third party.
It seems tu me it is no more fair that you should sit in
judgment of the employees and the employees should be
challenged to have violated your office by conduct in la-
bor matters. What we have to have is a third party and I
would like an answer to that.
A-92
MR. RUHLE: As I advised you on the ‘phone yester-
day, the Board is the proper party in the first instance
to make decisions of this sort, and it will do so, sir.
MR. EHLKE: They are prepared to hold a hearing?
MR. RUHLE: You have your objection on the record.
MR. EHLKE: Do I understand it then, management
people are resting their case?
MR. RUHLE: I understand management was forced to
rest their case because the parties will not participate in
hearings as planned by the Board.
MR. EHLKE: Without waiving our total objection to
this proceeding, to the lack of timely notice, and oppor-
tunity to prepare and to the Board sitting as the judge in
this matter, we do have some evidence we would like to
put into the record.
MR. RUHLE: I would like you to be more specific on
your timely notice objection. You stated your nature of
the objection, that the teachers were served beginning
Friday evening and some on Saturday, and this morning
we were talking about it, they were served Friday even-
ing. You did not make any request of the board that
those matters be adjourned. I don’t want you to reserve
your argument on timely notice without being a little
more specific for us in terms of what you feel would
be necessary for you to represent those people who were
scheduled for hearing between 9:00 and 11:20 this
morning.
MR. EHLKE: To the extent that you aren't offering
any evidence against any specific individual, we are pre-
pared at this time to present some evidence just for the
purposes of the record, not litigation or defense. But
that doesn’t waive our objection to the general manner in
A-93
which these proceedings have been held, in particular to
the fact that the Board is purporting to sit as judge.
MR. RUHLE: I understand that, Mr. Ehlke, but still
you raised several problems, one that the Board is the
maker, #1, is timely notice. I want you to have oppor-
tunity to be prepared if you intend to represent those peo-
ple in the production of evidence.
MR. EHLKE: We are wasting everybody’s time with
these hearings, to begin with. What I would like to do
at this time is put in the evidence I have, and if at the
conclusion of that I find I need more time, I will let you
know at that time. But I don’t think it serves anybody
any good to sit here all the time and not do anything, or
even to have some kind of a reconvened date. That
doesn’t make sense at all. You have to get this thing re-
solved and the best way is to bargain. We will put in our
recitation right now, what we have.
MR. RUHLE: But your position remains the same with
reference to the Board putting in evidence, whatever it
wants to put in?
MR. EHLKE: Sure. You have rested your case.
MR. RUHLE: All I want the record to reflect is wheth-
er this reflects difference in position in asking each par-
ticular teacher some questions.
MR. EHLKE: No, and I don’t intend to call each in-
dividual teacher.
MR. RUHLE: Will you give us some kind of inkling as
to the nature of the evidence you wish to present?
MR. EHLKE: Yes, it goes to bargaining here, and I
have some questions of some of the Board members.
MR. RUHLE: I will advise the Board as I think I ad-
vised you on the telephone yesterday, that the bargain-
A-94
ing is immaterial to the allegations in the notices. They are
immaterial.
MR. EHLKE: Then I would like to make an Offer of
Proof.
MR. RUHLE: All right, you may do so.
MR. EHLKE: Our Offer would be that the proposals
for the 1974/1975 as presently on the table; were not sig-
nificant representation, regressive—in particular the salary
schedule structure, and regressive salary schedule; the
grievance datelines were regressive; the proposals regard-
ing work-day previously agreed to which the parties and
the employer was proposing to have unilateral, which no
employee in their right mind could agree to. There was a
proposal the Board made to be included in the 1974/
1975 collective bargaining agreement that had to do with
professional responsibility, but it was a proposal that at-
tempted to govern the interim affairs of the Union, and
that’s wrong. We would furthermore put into evidence that
relative to the calendar for 1973/1974 schocl year, the
Board acted through its agents, Mr. Obry, I believe it was
the whole student body, and it is our position that is inter-
ference in the bargaining process, it is a coersive device,
attempted to bring an outside party to the bargaining
table—in this case, the student body. Furthermore, the
Board has refused to discuss insurance provisions proposed
by the Union; has refused to discuss a fair share. Since
this action began, at least in the last two weeks, in re-
sponse to numerous requests by the Union seeking bar-
gaining and attempting io resolve the parties’ differences
at the bargaining table, which is where it has to be re-
solved, the Board has refused these overtures and instead
has done what we are at today here.
A-95
We further would prove that the Union wasn’t noti-
fied of the efforts of the overtures to the individual em-
ployees which brought them here today. The Union
wasn’t notified previously when the employees were disci-
plined by docking of their pay, and this is a denial of the
employees’ right to be represented; unilateral dealing,
which is unlawful.
We further would prove some of the lost teaching time
has been occasioned by employees being locked out of their
places of employment. In fact, as I understand it, one
time chains were put on the door which not only constitu-
ted violation of the labor law, but as I understand it, is
violation of the safe place statute. There were children in
the building when chains were put on the doors, locking
them in.
Furthermore, relative to information concerning sal-
ary—and that’s one of the big items that presently divides
the parties—officers of the Union and particutarly Mr.
Wieniewski and Mr. Counard have been denied informa-
tion they sought information on, in February. They re-
quested certain information in March, March 3l1st of this
year, and that information was denied to the Union. That
information was pertinent to the salary negotiations which
are one of the things still on the table.
I think we can prove since this bargaining began, and
that was in January, 1973, believe it or not, the makeup
of the Board’s bargaining committee has changed in con-
siderable respects. People have left and other people have
come on; the spokesman has changed: one time Mr.
Vergimos, one time Mr. Brakway served as spokesman,
Mr. Brown served as spokesman, and all of this has had
a tendency to undermine the bargaining process, and
A-96
made bargaining virtually impossible. If you keep chang-
ing personnel and spokesmen, how in the world can you
resolve differences. That’s what we will show. That is the
information I have been able to learn, that I have been
advised of, and I would be prepared, and also prepared
to put into the record through witnesses today. There may
be more, but I haven’t had a chance to investigate the
matter that fully, because of time limitations.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, I would like to very briefly
respond to the Offer of Proof.
MR. EHLKE: Do you have counter-offer of proof?
MR. RUHLE: The record reflects that I am responding
to the Offer of Prove. Now could I proceed?
MR. EHLKE: It depends on what your purpose is. If
you have a counter-action to prove that would be appro-
priate.
MR. RUHLE: My recommendation to the Board is
that it did not consider evidence of the sort enumerated
in Mr. Ehlke’s Offer of Proof. It is on the one hand im-
material to the alleged conduct; it is on the other hand the
right kind of allegation and form of adjudication of alle-
gations, and then, of course, the Board doesn’t need to de-
fend itself against allegations that are to the extent directed
one-sided. So I would recommend that they not permit Mr.
Ehlke to proceed to prove what he has just offered to
prove.
MR. WEIHING: Is it so ordered.
MR. EHLKE: I certainly think it is.
MR. RUHLE: I am sure you do, Mr. Ehlke, because
you have offered to prove it.
MR. EHLKE: If your employees are engaged in work
stoppage there is provocation, and if there is provocation,
A-97
it certainly has something to do with whether or not you're
going to discharge them. That’s what you are talking
about here, when you are talking about breaching a con-
tract and discharging somebody, because of that. There
has to be just cause. Maybe you did punch the foreman in
the mouth, but if he provoked it and caused it to happen,
then that act of punching him in the mouth isn’t cause
for discharge. If more than your employees are engaged
in work stoppage, perhaps some conduct by management
people is a prerogative and certainly should be taken into
consideration if you are going to discharge somebody.
That’s why it is material and relevant. As far as appro-
priate forms going out, as I said before, we objected to
this proceeding, but beyond that it isn’t going to do us
any good, nor you, if we go to Employment Relations Com-
mission with complaints that you have been bargaining
in bad faith or we have been bargaining in bad faith.
It isn’t going to do you any good to have hearings or
things we have done today. We can all stand and say we
are people of principle and I am standing on my rights,
and these people too, or you people may be doing. We
must settle, and to do that you have to sit at the table
and bargain, and we could do it in half the time you have
already scheduled for whatever those things are with your
employees. That’s the only way you're going to settle it.
We are ready and these people are ready to meet with
you and bargain with you two hours from now, one hour
from now, a half hour from now, or three fours from
now, and to bargain with you through the evening. The
time you scheduled these things tomorrow, we will bar-
gain with you then. That’s the way to solve the prob-
lem. We are asking to bargain.
MR. RUHLE: I thought we had set this matter behind
A-98
us on the individuals involved; but I don’t think we ad-
dressed the question of Mr. Bellaire and Miss Miller who
have not been served. The only question I have, i foresee
the necessity for serving them with a Notice of Hearing.
MR. EHLKE: Why don’t you bargain in agreement,
Jim. By the time you have them served, the whole thing
would be over with and you wouldn’t have to be fooling
around with it.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, there are many ways to dis-
solve a labor dispute.
MR. EHLKE: Meeting at the bargaining table is the
way to do it.
MR. RUHLE: Mr. Ehlke, if we have refused to do
that, you have your forum.
MR. EHLKE: That is not going to solve the problem.
MR. RUHLE: That, Mr. Ehlke, is a concern of mine,
because the board has set a specific purpose for today
and it is not to consider whether WEAC is a proper for-
um for improper conduct by the Board. Mr. Bellaire and
Miss Miller will be receiving a notice unless we have a
different arrangement with respect to a hearing. I don’t
know if you are prepared to inform us what their posi-
tion is, or not.
MR. EHLKE: Frankly, I am not, at this time. You go
ahead and serve them. But in the meantime, the Board
has a few words left. As I understand it, the Board or its
agents know where representatives of the Association will
be contacted, and they will be there waiting with hope in
mind that the 3oard will contact them and try to bargain,
starting today.
MR. WEIHING: If there is nothing more, the hearing
is adjourned. |
(ADJOURNMENT: 1:20 o’clock p.m. 4/1/74.)
A-99
STATE OF WISCONSIN
SS.
COUNTY OF BROWN
I, Eunice L. Reynolds, a Certified Stenographic Re-
porter, with offices located at 822 South Jackson Street,
Green Bay, Brown County, Wisconsin, do hereby certify
that I reported and transcribed to writing the foregoing
Hearing in re: Striking Teachers, held before the Horton-
ville School Board, on Monday, April 1, 1974, at 9:00
o’clock a.m.;
That the same is true and correct (except perhaps as to
phonetic spelling of names) according to my original
shorthand notes taken at said time, and the whole there-
of.
Dated this 4th day of April, 1974.
/s/ EUNICE L. REYNODS
[EXHIBIT # 9, APRIL, 1974]
BOARD OF EDUCATION
HEARING OF: Mrs. Toni Stamborski, held at the Hor-
tonville High School in Hortonville, Wisconsin, on the Ist
day of April, 1974, A.D., held before the Board of Ed-
ucation.
APPEARANCES: MR. JAMES K. RUHLY of Madison,
Wisconsin, and MR. DAVID BRATHWAITE ap-
peared on behalf of the Hortonville Community Schools.
MRS. TONI STAMBORSKI appeared without counsel.
MR. RUHLY: May I proceed, Mr. President?
MR. PRESIDENT: Proceed, Counsel.
A-100
TONI STAMBORSKI, being first duly sworn on oath,
was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION:
BY MR. RUHLY:
Q Your name is Mrs. Stamborski?
A Yes.
Q. And the first name is?
A Toni.
Q Mrs. Stamborski, you are employed, are you not,
by the Hortonville Community Schools?
A Yes.
Q Let me show you a document, the typed portion
of which is a document addressed to you and I ask you if
you ever seen that document before?
A No.
Q Okay. Mrs. Stamborski, earlier this afternoon did
you and I—I might state my name is James Ruhly—
did we have a telephone conversation?
A Yes.
Q And did you at that time inquire as to whether
it would be possible for you to have a hearing this after-
noon?
A Yes.
Q_ And did I at that time advise you that you had a
right to written notice of the hearing and the reason?
A Yes.
Q. And did you advise me that you would waive your
rights to those?
A Yes.
Q Did I also advise you we were concerned here with
the allegations that you have breached your individu-
A-10]
al employment contract and that you have engaged in an
unlawful strike contrary to Wisconsin Law?
A Yes.
Q_ And did I advise you on the telephone that you had
a right to appear with counsel if you desired?
A Yes.
Q Now, Mrs. Stamborski, this morning Attorney
Bruce Ehlke, representing several other teachers, appeared
and asserted to the Board that Mr. Ehlke did not repre-
sent you, is that true?
A Yes.
Q And do you have counsel that you would like to
have with you today?
A No.
Q Okay. Mrs. Stamborski, the Board previously had
set hearing with you for Tuesday April 2nd, 1974, at 8:20
o'clock in the forenoon, Do I understand that you would
like to proceed with that hearing at this time?
A Yes.
Q And in the document that you just identified as
having never seen before, that document advises you
that you have an opportunity to present any statement or
evidence relevant to the alleged conduct that I enumerat-
ed previously, and did I so inform you on the telephone
this afternoon?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any evidence or statement relevant
to the allegations that you would like to present to the
Board at this time?
A_ I don’t quite follow all that.
Q Okay. Do you have any evidence or any statement
that you would like to present to the Board or say to the
A-102
Board at this time with respect to the allegations that you
breached your individual employment contract and that
you engaged in an unlawful strike contrary to Wisconsin
Law?
A_ No, I guess. No.
Q Mrs. Stamborski, did you in fact absent yourself
from your teaching duties the weeks beginning March 18th
and March 25th?
A Yes.
Q_ Where you ill during that period of time?
A No. I think I have a ulcer now, though.
Q Okay. Can you tell us why you were not at school
during that time, those two weeks?
A_ I don’t want to be harrassed, that’s why I didn’t
come back, afraid.
Q You were afraid of what?
A Just my relationship with the other teachers if I
came back.
Q Okay. You do have an individual teaching contract
for this year, do you not?
A Yes. |
Q Since March 18th have you received several com-
munications from the Board of Education signed by Mr.
Obry?
A Yes.
Q_ Did you read those communications?
A Yes.
Q_ Let me show you particularly a letter dated March
23rd, 1974. That does not have a salutation or does not
have a name in the salutation area and is signed on
the second page by Marvin Obry, and I ask you did you
receive a copy of that letter?
A-103
A Yes.
Q_ Did you read the letter?
A Yes.
Q Yes?
A Yes. :
MR. RUHLY: Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Q Back on the record. Mrs. Stamborski, I show you a
one-page document that purports to bear the signature of
Toni Weix. Was that your maiden name?
A Yes.
Q That was your name I take it on or about March
12 last year?
A Yes.
Q. And that is your signature?
A Yes.
Q Okay. And is this a copy of your individual teacli-
ing contract?
A Yes.
Q Now, also in the notice, the written notice, which
you have waived your right to receive but which other
individuals have received, the Board points out that the
conduct that you have engaged in or that you were al-
leged to have engaged in subjects you to disciplinary ac-
tion by the Board including termination of your employ-
ment contract that you have identified and acknowledged
that individual teaching contract which incorporates en-
tirely collective bargaining agreements dated May 8th,
1972, and which also purports and states that it is a
solemn and binding contract not to be breached by either
party without good or sufficient grounds. I would like to
ask you has your absence from work the weeks of March
A-104
18th and 25th been based on good and sufficient
grounds, and if so would you advise the Board what those
grounds are?
A_ Well, I think it’s with grounds. I just have been
afraid to come back, that’s all. It’s not that I haven't
wanted to teach. I’d just as soon not have a really poor
relationship because things can be rough at the end of
the year. I just didn’t want things made really rough.
Q_ Were you picketing during part of the time?
A Two days I did.
Q_ What days were those, do you recall?
A The first two days.
Q March 18th and 19th?
A Yes.
Q_ You have not picketed since that time?
A No.
Q Have you discussed with your Association repre-
sentative your feeling about wanting to return to work?
A No.
Q Okay. Have you considered your absence from
school those two weeks to be part of a strike activity by
your bargaining representative?
A No.
Q_ Will you tell us what you have considered you ab-
sence to be because of or due to?
A Because of being afraid.
Q_ And this fear, as I understand it, is a fear of what?
A Of my colleagues, you know, just of being har-
rassed and that type of thing.
Q Okay. Was that also the reason that you were not
in school on March 18th and 19th?
A_ Well, March 18th I came to see what was going on
A-105
more or less, you know, to see what was happening, That
was probably the only reasons I came.
Q What about March 19th?
A_ I came to see what I had involved myself in so I
could make up my mind from there.
Q With respect to the 19th, what was the reason for
your absence on the 19th?
A I think more or less just relationship with the teach-
ers. Then I decided after that that my teaching was more
important than my relationship, so that’s why I didn’t con-
tinue coming.
Q Now, has there been any period in those two weeks
beginning March 18th and March 25th when you have
been prevented by the School System from returning to
work?
A No.
Q_ And were you aware that your colleagues were en-
gaged in a concerted work stoppage against the School
District?
A Yes.
Q Now, that’s all the questions that I have. I would
like you to say anything that you would like to say to
the Board keeping in mind the alternatives that the Board
has if it finds you guilty of the alleged conduct, specifically
keeping in mind that this could subject you to termina-
tion of employment. Is there anything you would like the
Board to know prior to its consideration
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.