# Appendix — Hortonville Joint School District No. 1 v. Hortonville Education Ass'n > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0579%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1976 - **Citation:** 426 U.S. 482 ## 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 [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0579%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.