Court says Scott Walker broke the law by talking about not having 40 hour work week...what?

Appeals court says Walker overstepped authority with shorter work weeks
Original Post: JS Online

By Steve Schultze of the Journal Sentinel

Dec. 21, 2010 12:04 p.m. |(73) Comments

The state Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that County Executive and Governor-elect Scott Walker's imposition of a 35-hour work week in 2009 as an emergency budget measure overstepped his authority.

Though the 35-hour week was never implemented, Walker instead imposed furloughs using his emergency authority as justification. That means the county might be held be liable for millions of dollars in back pay, said Richard Abelson, executive director of District Council 48 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The council is the county's largest union and initiated the lawsuit last year that led to the latest ruling.

The Appeals Court ruling, however, is silent on the furlough issue. County officials in the past have disputed Abelson's stance that the emergency furloughs were improperly implemented.

Walker couldn't be immediately reached for comment.

Abelson said he hoped that the Appeals Court decision might help at least leverage the county into reopening discussions on the stalemate over union contracts covering 2009 and this year.

"Hopefully this decision will compel" county officials to get back to the bargaining table, Abelson said.

The appeals ruling said that an arbitrator's decision favoring the union stance against the 35-hour week should be restored. It reversed Circuit Judge Dennis Flynn's June 2009 ruling against a arbitrator and siding with Walker.

The collective bargaining agreement in place between the county and District Council 48 gives an arbitrator the authority to decide whether "Walker's order may seek to lessen a budget shortfall by reducing the work week hours of the union's members," Tuesday's ruling said.

"It thus makes no difference if courts disagree with the arbitrator's analysis or even if that analysis is 'wrong,' " the appeals panel said.

The ruling was writing by Appeals Court Judge Ralph Adam Fine.