## Facts

- The City of Brookfield and a firefighters’ union had a collective bargaining relationship under Wisconsin’s Municipal Employment Relations Act (MERA), which requires bargaining over “wages, hours and conditions of employment.”
- The parties’ 1972 agreement did not include a minimum staffing provision and did not expressly address layoffs or management rights.
- In late 1972, the City reduced the fire department budget as part of broader budget reductions and decided to lay off five firefighters.
- During bargaining for the 1973 agreement, the union sought to negotiate regarding staffing and benefits connected to the impending layoffs, including severance or unemployment-related benefits.
- City representatives stated the layoff decision was a managerial matter and refused to bargain over the decision; the City implemented the layoffs.
- The union filed a prohibited-practice complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC), alleging the City refused to bargain over both the layoff decision and its effects.
- WERC found a duty to bargain over both the decision and effects and ordered reinstatement and reimbursement for the laid-off firefighters.
- On judicial review, the circuit court held the City had no duty to bargain over the layoff decision but affirmed a duty to bargain over the effects; only the decision issue was appealed further.

## Issues

1. Whether a municipal employer’s budget-based decision to lay off firefighters is a mandatory subject of bargaining under MERA.
2. Whether such a layoff decision is instead a reserved management prerogative, with only the effects of the decision subject to mandatory bargaining.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court.
- The court held the City had no duty to bargain over the decision to lay off five firefighters when the decision was based on budget reductions.
- The court left intact the unappealed ruling that the City must bargain over the effects of the layoffs.
- Because the City had no duty to bargain over the layoff decision itself, WERC’s remedy predicated on that duty (including reinstatement and reimbursement) could not stand to that extent.

## Legal Principles

- MERA requires good-faith bargaining over “wages, hours and conditions of employment,” but it does not require bargaining over all governmental choices.
- Public employers retain authority over core policy and budget decisions, including determinations about allocation of resources and staffing levels tied to budget reductions.
- A distinction exists between (a) the governmental decision to implement budget-driven layoffs (not a mandatory bargaining subject) and (b) the effects of that decision on employees (a mandatory bargaining subject).
- WERC’s labor-relations expertise is respected, but courts bear ultimate responsibility for interpreting MERA’s scope of mandatory bargaining.

## Conclusion

A municipality’s budget-based decision to lay off firefighters is a nonmandatory management policy determination, while the impacts of that decision on employees’ wages, hours, and working conditions remain subject to mandatory effects bargaining.


City of Brookfield v. Wis. Emp. Rels. Comm’n, 87 Wis. 2d 819, 275 N.W.2d 723 (Wis. 1979)