Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker
851 N.W.2d 337, 358 Wis. 2d 1, 2014 WI 99 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
State laws that modify the statutory framework for public-sector collective bargaining do not infringe upon the constitutional right to freedom of association, as collective bargaining is a legislative grant, not a constitutional right. Such laws are subject to rational basis review under an equal protection challenge because they do not implicate a fundamental right or suspect class.
Facts:
- In 2011, the Wisconsin Legislature enacted Act 10, a budget repair bill proposed by Governor Scott Walker.
- Act 10 limited collective bargaining for most municipal public employees, known as 'general employees', to the single subject of base wages.
- The Act prohibited municipal employers from deducting labor organization dues from the paychecks of general employees.
- The law banned 'fair share agreements,' which had previously required non-union employees in a bargaining unit to pay a proportionate share of the costs for collective bargaining.
- Act 10 instituted a requirement for unions representing general employees to hold annual recertification elections, which required a majority vote of all eligible members to pass.
- A separate provision of Act 10, Wis. Stat. § 62.623, prohibited the City of Milwaukee from paying the employee share of required contributions to the City of Milwaukee Employes' Retirement System.
- Prior to Act 10, the City of Milwaukee had funded these member contributions on behalf of each participating employee hired before January 1, 2010.
- Madison Teachers, Inc. and Public Employees Local 61 are labor organizations representing general employees affected by these changes.
Procedural Posture:
- Madison Teachers, Inc. and Public Employees Local 61 sued Governor Walker and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission commissioners in Dane County Circuit Court (a state trial court).
- The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that several provisions of Act 10 violated the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions.
- The circuit court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding that Act 10 violated rights of association, equal protection, and the state's Home Rule Amendment and Contract Clause.
- The defendants (Governor Walker, et al.) filed a notice of appeal from the circuit court's decision.
- The court of appeals (an intermediate appellate court) certified the case directly to the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
- The Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the certification for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do the provisions of Wisconsin Act 10—which limit collective bargaining subjects, prohibit fair share agreements and payroll deductions for union dues, and require annual recertification elections—impermissibly infringe upon the freedom of association and equal protection rights of public employees under the Wisconsin and United States Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Gableman, J.
No, the provisions of Wisconsin Act 10 do not impermissibly infringe upon the freedom of association and equal protection rights of public employees. The court reasoned that public employees' associational rights are not implicated because there is no constitutional right to collective bargaining; it is a statutory privilege that the legislature is free to modify or eliminate. The unconstitutional conditions doctrine does not apply because employees are not forced to relinquish a constitutional right to receive the 'benefit' of statutory bargaining. Because no fundamental right is at stake, the law is subject to rational basis review for the equal protection claim, and it survives because the classifications are rationally related to the legitimate government interest of controlling public expenditures. The court also upheld the provision affecting Milwaukee's pension, finding it to be a matter of statewide concern that does not violate the Home Rule Amendment and does not impair a contract, as the city charter did not create an unmistakable contractual right for the city to fund the employees' share of contributions.
Dissenting - Bradley, J.
Yes, the provisions of Act 10 do impermissibly infringe upon the constitutional rights of public employees. The majority misframes the issue by focusing on a right to 'bargain' when the actual issue is the fundamental constitutional right to 'organize.' The dissent argues that Act 10's provisions, taken together, unconstitutionally punish and discourage the exercise of this right by making it unduly expensive and difficult for unions to operate. Furthermore, the law creates an unconstitutional condition by forcing employees to give up their right to effectively organize in order to negotiate on subjects beyond base wages. The dissent would also find that the Milwaukee pension provision violates the Home Rule Amendment, as it is a matter of purely local concern, and that it violates the Contract Clause by impairing a contractually guaranteed benefit.
Concurring - Crooks, J.
No, the provisions of Act 10 do not violate the constitution. The legal framework for a facial challenge requires the court to presume the statute is constitutional, and the plaintiffs failed to meet the high burden of proving otherwise. The collective bargaining rights at issue are statutory, not constitutional, and therefore the majority's legal analysis is correct. However, the concurrence was written to express deep reservations about the policy of Act 10, stating that it 'went further than needed' and eroded Wisconsin's long and valuable tradition of supporting collective bargaining, but noting that the court cannot substitute its own policy judgments for those of the legislature.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the legal principle that public-sector collective bargaining is a matter of legislative privilege, not a constitutional right. It grants states broad authority to structure, limit, or even dismantle statutory collective bargaining frameworks without triggering heightened scrutiny under the First Amendment's freedom of association. By applying rational basis review to the equal protection claims, the court affirmed that fiscal concerns constitute a legitimate state interest sufficient to justify classifications that may disadvantage unions. This precedent significantly weakens the grounds for constitutional challenges against legislative reforms that diminish the power and influence of public-sector unions in other states.
Unlock the full brief for Madison Teachers, Inc. v. Scott Walker