City files motion to dismiss unions’ lawsuit

August 10, 2012 6:19 am

The city of Racine has filed a motion asking that a lawsuit three unions filed against the municipality last month be dismissed.

On July 19 the City Council voted to rescind prospective 2013-2014 contracts affecting 524 of the city’s 670 employees. City staff told aldermen that wage and benefits provisions in those contracts, which were passed by the council in December 2010 and January and February of 2011, will create a $2 million deficit in the 2013 budget and the city can’t raise taxes to pay for the provisions because of property taxing restrictions imposed by the Legislature.

Two days later three of the unions affected by the vote — AFSCME Local 67, the Racine Police Association and Racine Firefighters Local 321 of the International Association of Firefighters — filed a lawsuit in Racine County Circuit Court asking that the contracts be upheld.

In the summons and complaint the unions argue that council’s actions constituted a “breach of contract.”

In its motion to dismiss, which was filed Wednesday, the city states that the unions failed to follow state statue when they filed a lawsuit without first waiting for the city to respond to the unions’ “notice of claim.”

“Any time there is a lawsuit or claim against a municipality or governmental agency there is a statutory requirement that whoever is filing the claim file a notice of circumstances,” Deputy City Attorney Scott Letteney said. “That has to be filed within a 120 days of the event giving rise to the claim.

“Within a 120 days of the notice of claim being filed, the municipality has to file a response to the claim, and the (city) council has to do that,” Letteney continued. “It is only after the municipality has responded to the claim, that the complainant is permitted to file a lawsuit.”

The unions did file a “notice of claim” with the Racine City Clerk, Letteney confirms, but they did not wait the required 120 days and find out the city council’s response before filing their lawsuit.

In their summons and complaint filed on July 19, the unions address the “notice of claim” issue, writing: “Although plaintiffs do not believe they are required to file a notice of claim...under the circumstances of this case, particularly given the urgent need for swift judicial action in response to the city’s actions, they have presented such a notice...”

“We believe that we have followed the proper procedure,” David Dorn, a staff representative for AFSCME Local 67, said Thursday of the city’s motion to dismiss. “I would say that unfortunately the city’s decision to wait six months before these contracts were to become effective doesn’t afford us the opportunity to wait 120 days.

“City employees need to know their future and they need to know it soon.”

The city’s motion to dismiss is slated to be heard at 8:30 a.m. on Sept. 7 in Judge Gerald Ptacek’s courtroom.