113.2 Labor organizations

A union representative was not a necessary party where the collective bargaining agreement excluded pregnancy disability from the employer’s disability plan because the employer was solely responsible for paying disability benefits and there was no evidence that the union induced the employer’s action. Gen. Tel. Co. v. LIRC (Kraczek) (Ct. App., Dist. IV, unpublished opinion, 12/09/81)

Although a no probable cause finding had been made regarding a Co-Respondent union, its motion to be dismissed from the action was denied on the basis that it was a representative of its members’ interests regarding the retroactive seniority claim of the complaining party. Milwaukee County v. DILHR (Lade) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 09/07/78).

An employer's motion to compel joiner of a union was denied, even though the union was a party to a collective bargaining agreement providing for less disability coverage for pregnancy, because the union was not needed to aid in the interpretation of the agreement. Sorgel Elec. v. LIRC (Dobson) (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 08/10/79); also, Hall v. Ripon Foods (LIRC, 08/09/78); Appleton Papers v. DILHR (Schmitz) (Dane Co. Cir. Ct., 06/26/75).

A black employee failed to show that he was denied proper union representation after his discharge where his union demonstrated that he and other black employees were given representation that was similar to that given white employees. Beamon v. Kiekhaefer Mercury (DILHR, 02/21/75).

The denial by a trade union local of full membership to a black tradesman from an out-of-state sister local was discriminatory, as was the local’s subsequent grant to him of limited membership while his skills were investigated. Blue v. Schaffer (Milwaukee Co. Cir. Ct., 02/13/54).