| NEBRASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LOCAL | | | CASE NO. 819 |
| UNION 251, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF | | | |
| STATE AND COUNTY MUNICIPAL | | | |
| EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, | | | |
| | | ||
| Petitioner, | | | FINDINGS AND ORDER |
| | | ||
| v. | | | |
| | | ||
| THE COUNTY OF DOUGLAS, NEBRASKA, | | | |
| | | ||
| Respondent. | | |
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Thomas F. Dowd
Dowd & Dowd
1905 Harney Street, # 710
Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2314
For the Respondent: Denise A. Hill
Deputy County Attorney
909 Civic Center
Omaha, Nebraska 68183
Before: Judges Orr, Kratz, and V. Moore Jr.
ORR, J:
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
A petition was filed by the Nebraska Public Employees Local Union 251 requesting that the Commission set wages and other terms and conditions of employment for the employees of Local 251. The fiscal year in dispute is July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992. In addition to wages, the issues are shift differential, annual leave, sick time, hours of work per week, health insurance, life insurance, and dental insurance.
The parties disagreed as to the number of job classifications in dispute. Petitioner claims there are 89 job classifications, while respondent claims there are 91. Neither party's job classification list matches the list attached to the petition as exhibit "A," which petitioner indicated at pretrial was the list of job classifications in dispute. Since the job classifications for which petitioner provided wage data (exhibit 8) matches the list of job classifications in petitioner's exhibit 9c, the Douglas County position descriptions for 1991, the Commission will set wages for the job classifications in petitioner's exhibit 8.
Petitioner and respondent entered into several stipulations. Foundation was waived on all exhibits, and the parties stipulated that the exhibits should be received into evidence. The parties also stipulated that the data set forth in petitioner's exhibit 8 and respondent's exhibit 102, which are summaries of the salary and fringe benefit surveys, are true and correct and entitled to be treated as fact. The parties further stipulated that petitioner's expert witness, Gary Troutman, and respondent's expert witness, Dr. Robert Ottemann, are qualified to testify as experts. Finally, the parties stipulated as to the similarity of the work, skills and working conditions of employees employed by the City of Omaha; Polk County, Iowa; Lancaster County, Nebraska; Ramsey County, Minnesota; Sedgwick County, Kansas; Dane County, Wisconsin; Jackson County,
Missouri; and El Paso County, Colorado.
ARRAY SELECTION
Of the fifteen array members offered, five were offered by both of the parties. The common array members are the City of Omaha; Lancaster County, Nebraska; Polk County, Iowa; Ramsey County, Minnesota; and Sedgwick County, Kansas. Petitioner also offered Kent County, Michigan; Denver County, Colorado; and Johnson County, Kansas. Respondent also offered Metro. Tech. Community College; State of Nebraska; University of Nebraska Medical Center; Dane County, Wisconsin; El Paso County, Colorado; Jackson County, Missouri and Tulsa County, Oklahoma. Table 1 sets out the characteristics of the proposed array members.
Petitioner and respondent used different criteria when selecting their array. Petitioner's methodology consisted of five criteria: Size, based on the number of employees; geographic proximity; number of job matches; balance, based on the population of the county where the employer is located; and the employer's organizational structure. Respondent sought out local employers, selecting them based on size in terms of number of employees. Respondent then focused its array selection on other employers using the criteria of geographic proximity, population of the county, and whether there was a major city of at least 150,000 (one-half the population of Omaha) within the county.
The local employers of Metro. Tech. Community College, State of Nebraska, and University of Nebraska Medical Center shall be eliminated from the Commission's final array. Although the supreme court has stated in AFSCME Local 2088 v. County of Douglas, 208 Neb. 511, 304 N.W.2d 368 (1981) that we must consider local employers if they are comparable, there was ample testimony that the local employers in this case are not comparable. Both parties' expert witnesses testified that there are a number of job classifications unique to county government.
There was also testimony indicating that these three local employers are not structurally similar to Douglas County. Respondent's expert witness testified that the majority of the Local 251 job classifications are under the direct authority of elected officials, and this is not true for Metro. Tech. or the Medical Center. Although the number of State of Nebraska employees working within Douglas County fit the size criteria, the statewide number far exceeds this criteria. Respondent's expert witness also testified that the terms and conditions of employment for all state employees are set on a statewide basis rather than on a local level. Thus the wages paid to state employees working in Douglas County are not a reflection of local wages and employment conditions. See City of Omaha v. Nebraska Pub. Employees Local No. 251, 10 CIR 191, 195 (1990). Terms and conditions of employment for the Medical Center are set by the university system, which includes UNL, UNMC, UNK and UNO. Again, the terms and conditions of employment for Medical Center employees are not established at the Medical Center, but are a reflection of the university system. There was ample evidence that Denver County is not comparable. Denver clearly falls outside of the size criteria since it has almost five times as many employees as Douglas County. Petitioner's own expert witness testified that structurally Denver is not a good match. He testified that Denver has a combined city/county government operation controlled by the city council and mayor. He further testified that Denver has a city manager who has more control over the government operation than do counties with elected officials. The personnel director for Douglas County testified that the majority of Douglas County employees in the case at bar are under the supervision of elected officials. Both parties' expert witnesses testified that Denver has very generic, broad job classifications. Respondent's expert witness testified that he found it difficult to match job positions between Denver and Douglas County because even though Denver job classifications matched with Douglas County, they included many other duties not performed by the Douglas County positions.
The evidence regarding Tulsa County indicates that there are a low number of job matches between Tulsa and Douglas County. Both parties sent wage questionnaires to Tulsa County. Petitioner chose not to use Tulsa in its array because out of the forty-two job classifications it surveyed, only six matched with job classifications in Douglas County. Respondent surveyed thirty-five job classifications, and matched fifteen. Although respondent was more successful in its job matches, a match of fifteen out of thirty-five is well below respondent's success rate with other county employers in its array. A low number of job matches indicates that the structure of Douglas County is not comparable to Tulsa, and thus Tulsa shall be eliminated from the Commission's final array.
Johnson County and Jackson County are both located within the Kansas City metropolitan area. To use both employers would be to double-dip from the same labor market. See City of Omaha v. Omaha Police Union Local No. 101, 5 CIR 171, 178 (1981). Respondent's expert witness testified that Johnson County has a compa-ratio salary system which is set up in such a manner that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to reach the maximum salary for a given job classification. Respondent's expert also testified that Jackson County is comparable, and there was no evidence disputing its comparability. The Commission shall eliminate Johnson County from it's final array.
Finally, the Commission shall eliminate the county of Kent because, with the exception of Kent, both parties selected array members within 500 miles of Douglas County. Kent is approximately 624 miles from Douglas County. The Commission has a sufficient number of comparable array members making it unnecessary to go beyond 500 miles.
The Commission's final array shall consist of the City of Omaha; Polk County, Iowa; Lancaster County, Nebraska; Ramsey County, Minnesota; Sedgwick County, Kansas; Dane County, Wisconsin; Jackson County, Missouri; and El Paso County, Colorado.
FRINGE BENEFITS
Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 (1988), the Commission is required to look at fringe benefits and wages to determine overall compensation. Table 2 sets out the shift differential policies for the employers in the Commission's array. It is prevalent to offer additional compensation for working the second (evening) and third (night) shifts. Since the amount of additional compensation paid by Douglas County is the prevalent amount, no change shall be made regarding this fringe benefit.
The vacation policies of the array members are illustrated in Tables 3 and 4. Douglas County's vacation accumulation rate is either at or above prevalent, and its maximum carry over is below prevalent. The new vacation accumulation rate table is set out in the order section of the opinion. The maximum vacation carry over shall be increased to thirty days. Douglas County's policy of allowing conversion to cash upon resignation, dismissal, retirement or death is prevalent, so no change shall be made.
Table 5 sets out the sick leave allowance policies of the array members. Douglas County does not presently allow its employees to use their sick leave for the illness of immediate family members. However, it is prevalent to allow such use of sick leave, and therefore Douglas County shall be ordered to do so. It is prevalent to provide nine hours of sick leave accumulation per month, and to allow 183 days of maximum accumulation. Douglas County shall reduce its sick leave accumulation from ten to nine hours per month, and shall increase its maximum accumulation from 180 to 183 days.
Table 6 indicates whether employees can convert unused sick leave to cash upon retirement, resignation, death or dismissal. Each employer's conversion policy is different from the other employers making a comparison difficult at best. Douglas County's policy is to allow 100% conversion to pension benefits upon retirement. Although it is prevalent to offer some type of conversion upon retirement, resignation or death, there is no uniform prevalent practice. Douglas County's sick leave pay off shall remain unchanged.
Table 7 illustrates that it is not prevalent for an employer to provide incentives to their employees to minimize the use of sick leave, nor is it prevalent to allow conversion of sick leave to vacation. Douglas County does not provide either benefit, so no change shall be made.
Table 8 sets out the number of hours of work per week for the employers in the Commission's array. All eight employers have a forty hour work week. Although Table 8 indicates that Douglas County employees have a forty hour work week, they actually work thirty-five hours and get paid for five one-hour lunch periods each week. Although it is prevalent to actually work forty hours per week, we did not adjust the work week for Douglas County employees. We did, however, make adjustments when determining the prevalent wage rates. These adjustments are discussed in detail under the "Wages" section of the opinion.
Table 9 sets out the dental insurance figures. It is prevalent for an employer to offer and partially pay for dental insurance. Of those employers that offer dental insurance, it is prevalent for an employer to pay for 73 percent of the single premium and 50 percent of the family premium. Douglas County is above prevalent in its payment of the single premium, and below prevalent in its payment of the family premium. For employees enrolled in the dental insurance plan, Douglas County shall pay 73 percent of the cost of the single premium and 50 percent of the cost of the family premium.
The relevant information regarding life insurance is contained within Table 10. When determining the prevalent amount of life insurance, we eliminated Dane, Ramsey, and Sedgwick since the amount of coverage these employers provide varies with each employee's salary. Of the five remaining employers, three provide their employees with a $15,000 life insurance policy. It is prevalent for the employer to pay 100 percent of the cost of life insurance. Douglas County is comparable in both in coverage and the amount paid by the employer, so no change shall be made.
Table 11 indicates that it is prevalent to offer supplemental life insurance, to provide life insurance coverage for dependents and to require employees to pay the full cost of dependent coverage. The amount of coverage offered for supplemental life insurance varies, and is often determined on an individual basis according to an employee's annual salary. This makes a comparison of the coverage amount difficult. There is no prevalent practice regarding the amount of the supplemental life insurance. Douglas County offers supplemental life insurance, but not dependent coverage. Douglas County shall extend its supplemental life insurance to include dependent coverage with the cost of dependent coverage paid for by each employee electing such insurance.
Table 12 sets out the relevant information on the H.M.O. health insurance plans offered by the employers in the Commission's array. It is prevalent for an employer to pay 100 percent of the single and 84 percent of the family premium. Although Douglas County is below prevalent, its single and family premium costs are the highest among the seven employers offering H.M.O. health insurance. We did not prepare a table showing the specific provisions of each employer's policy, but we did review them for comparability. Douglas County's H.M.O. policy is comparable. Since the policies are comparable but the costs are materially different, we compare, if possible, the benefits to the employees and not the cost to the employer. See Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 23 v. City of Holdrege, 9 CIR 257, 263 (1988). Therefore, Douglas County shall pay 100 percent of the single and 84 percent of the family premium.
The major medical health insurance plans are set out in Table 13. It is prevalent for an employer to pay 100 percent of the single and 83 percent of the family premium. Douglas County is below prevalent. Although the premium costs at Douglas County are not the highest among the array members, they are nearly the highest. We did not prepare a table showing the specific provisions of each employer's policy, but we did review them for comparability. In some areas Douglas County's major medical plan is slightly better, and in other areas it provides less. We decline to order any changes to Douglas County's major medical plan. Douglas County shall pay 100 percent of the single and 83 percent of the family premium.
Table 14 indicates which employers provide health insurance for retirees and their family. Five of the eight employers pay nothing towards such health insurance. Of these five employers, one does not provide any coverage to retirees, one provides it but pays nothing toward the premium, and three provide COBRA. COBRA is a federal law which allows employees to continue their group health insurance after employment is terminated, but the entire premium is paid for by the employee. Since it is prevalent to pay nothing toward the cost of health insurance for retirees and their family, Douglas County shall eliminate its policy of paying part of the premium cost for retirees and their family.
WAGES
The parties differed in their method of calculating the comparable wages for Douglas County. Petitioner surveyed forty-seven job classifications. For the remaining job classifications which petitioner had insufficient data or no data at all, petitioner's expert established a relationship with the surveyed classifications. He testified that he attempted to follow lines of progression as to what position an employee would promote up to or would be either above or below the position in question. He testified that he then took the present pay scale for Douglas County, and determined a percentage relationship between each surveyed position and the position in its line of progression.
Respondent, on the other hand, used key classification and surveyed thirty-five job classifications. Key classification can be used when a large number of job classifications are in dispute. There are nine guidelines which allow the parties to survey a small percentage of the job classifications, and yet be able to arrive at wage figures for all of the job classifications. It was originally adopted by the Commission in IBEW v. OPPD, 3 CIR 554 (1978), and its use was affirmed by the supreme court in AFSME Local 2088 v. County of Douglas, 208 Neb. 511, 304 N.W.2d 368 (1981). It has more recently been used in Douglas County Health Department Employees Association v. County of Douglas, 8 CIR 208 (1986), aff'd on other grounds, 229 Neb. 301, 427 N.W.2d 28 (1988) and City of Omaha v. Nebraska Public Employees Local 251, 10 CIR 191, final order, 10 CIR 233 (1990).
When calculating the wages for the job classifications in the case at bar, the Commission used wage data from actual surveys when it was available. If one party actually surveyed a particular job classification, and the other party imputed the wage for that position, then we used the wage data from the party that did the actual surveying. See Douglas County Health Dep't Employees Ass'n v. County of Douglas, 8 CIR 208, 216 (1986) (the Commission finds market wage surveys to be the most accurate and favorable method of obtaining wage information from comparable employers).
The remaining wage data was taken from respondent's exhibit 102. The employers in the Commission's array that are not common were offered by respondent, so the only wage data available for these employers is in respondent's exhibit 102. For the common employers, the Commission examined the lines of progression established by both parties, and concluded that respondent's data using key classification is more reliable. Respondent's expert testified that he followed the nine key classification guidelines, and petitioner's expert testified that, although he surveyed roughly one-half of the disputed job classifications, he did not follow the key classification guidelines. Petitioner also did not follow any other previously accepted method of comparison.
The July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992 minimum and maximum wages for the job classifications that were actually surveyed by one of the parties are the figures set out on the line entitled "Midpoint" in Table 15. Table 16 sets out the minimum and maximum wages for the job classifications whose wages were imputed using key classification. The wages currently being paid by Douglas County are set out in columns two and three of Table 16, and the wages we have determined are comparable are set out in columns four and five under the heading "Computed Wages."
The wages for the positions of VDT Operator I and II, and Data Resource Technician were computed separate from the other job classifications. The "key class" position of VDT Operator I has only one match in our selected array so there is insufficient market wage data to set wages for this position, and consequently, there is insufficient data to set the wages for the two job classifications in its line of progression - VDT Operator II and Data Resource Technician. The wages for these latter two positions can be calculated after determining what job to use to impute the wages for VDT Operator I. We chose to compare VDT Operator I to Clerk Typist II since it is the closest job match.
We want to maintain the same percentage differential currently paid at Douglas County between the positions of Clerk Typist II and VDT Operator I. A VDT Operator I at Douglas County currently is paid 3% lower on the minimum, and 6.6% lower on the maximum than the Clerk Typist II. Applying these percentages to the minimum and maximum wages ordered for a Clerk Typist II results in a VDT Operator I earning $6.27 at minimum and $7.66 at maximum. Using respondent's line of progression percentage differentials from exhibit 102 for VDT Operator II and Data Resource Technician yields a minimum for VDT Operator II of $8.53 and a maximum of $8.27 and a minimum for Data Resource Technician of $7.96 and a maximum of $8.27. Obviously, there is a problem with ordering the prevalent maximum for VDT Operator II because it is less than the minimum wage. We therefore find the VDT Operator II should be paid $8.53 on both the minimum and maximum.
Most of the Douglas County employees within the Local 251 bargaining unit work seven hours per day, but are paid for eight hours per day. The employees take an hour off of work for lunch, and in effect, get a paid lunch period. Working seven hours per day and getting paid for eight is a direct financial benefit to the employees of Douglas County. The Commission has in the past made adjustments for differences in hours worked. See Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 12 v. County of Adams, 3 CIR 585 (1978), aff'd, 205 Neb. 682, 685, 289 N.W.2d 535, 537 (1980).
All of the employers in the Commission's final array require their employees to work an eight hour day and pay their employees for eight hours of work each day. The wage rates paid by the employers in the final array were adjusted to reflect this difference in the number of hours worked, except for the positions of Youth Detention Specialist, Data Entry and Verifier Operator and Computer Operator. Respondent's expert witness testified that the Youth Detention Specialist actually works an eight hour day, so the wage figures for that position were left unadjusted. Respondent's expert also testified that the Data Entry and Verifier Operator and the Computer Operator work seven and one-half hours each day, so these wage figures were adjusted accordingly.
The impact of adjusting the wage data to reflect a seven hour work day has resulted in some positions in Douglas County being above prevalent. In addition, the difference between minimum and maximum for each job classification in Douglas County was often larger than what is comparable for the employers in the Commission's array. This has resulted in some maximum wages in Douglas County being above prevalent. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 (1988) authorizes the Commission to set wages at prevalent regardless of whether that requires an increase or decrease in wages. The supreme court has affirmed our authority in this regard. See Douglas County Health Dep't Employees Ass'n v. County of Douglas, 8 CIR 208 (1986), aff'd, 229 Neb. 301, 427 N.W.2d 28 (1988).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:
The vacation accumulation rate for Douglas County
shall be as follows:
| Yrs of Emp. | Days |
|---|---|
| 1-3 | 11 |
| 4 | 12 |
| 5-6 | 15 |
| 7-8 | 15 |
| 9 | 15 |
| 10-13 | 17 |
| 14 | 18 |
| 15 | 20 |
| 20 | 21 |
Maximum vacation carry over shall be 30 days.
Douglas County shall allow its employees to use sick leave for the illness of an immediate family member.
Douglas County employees shall accumulate 9 hours of sick leave per month, and shall be allowed to accumulate a maximum of 183 days.
For employees enrolled in the dental insurance plan, Douglas County shall pay 73 percent of the cost of the single premium or 50 percent of the cost of the family premium.
Douglas County shall make available to its employees life insurance coverage for dependents with the cost paid for by each employee electing such insurance.
Douglas County shall pay 100 percent of the single or 84 percent of the family premium for employees enrolled in the H.M.O. health insurance plan.
Douglas County shall pay 100 percent of the single or 83 percent of the family premium for employees enrolled in the major medical health insurance plan.
Douglas County shall pay nothing toward the cost of health insurance for retired employees and their families.
Petitioner's wages for the fiscal year July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992 shall be as follows:
| Job Classification | Minimum | Maximum |
|---|---|---|
| Accounting Clerk I | $6.69 | $8.70 |
| Accounting Clerk II | $7.59 | $9.75 |
| Accounting Clerk III | $8.18 | $10.35 |
| Administrative Assistant | $9.68 | $9.68 |
| Asst. Data Entry Supvr. | $6.83 | $9.83 |
| Asst. Maintenance Supvr. | $6.55 | $8.38 |
| Asst. Supvr./ MV Assmt. | $9.29 | $11.94 |
| Asst. Supvr./ RE M & Id | $10.46 | $13.36 |
| Asst. Supv./RE Records | $7.18 | $8.94 |
| Asst. Weed Supervisor | $6.94 | $9.58 |
| Auto Equipment Oper. I | $8.03 | $9.71 |
| Auto Equipment Oper. II | $8.53 | $10.40 |
| Auto Equipment Oper. III | $8.48 | $10.59 |
| Booking Clerk | $7.29 | $9.26 |
| Building Attendant | $6.84 | $7.89 |
| Carpenter | $8.99 | $11.43 |
| Cashier | $6.49 | $8.35 |
| Cashier/Child Support | $6.20 | $7.73 |
| Cashier/Landfill | $4.87 | $5.59 |
| Cashier/Legal | $7.79 | $8.35 |
| Cashier Typist/Writs | $9.02 | $10.63 |
| Cashier Typist I/Sheriff | $6.63 | $8.50 |
| Cashier Typist I/Treas. | $6.63 | $8.50 |
| Cashier Typist II/Sheriff | $9.02 | $10.63 |
| Cashier Typist II/Treas. | $9.02 | $10.63 |
| Civil Process Server | $5.80 | $8.30 |
| Clerk I | $5.96 | $7.35 |
| Clerk II | $6.36 | $8.10 |
| Clerk III | $6.90 | $8.68 |
| Clerk Typist I | $5.91 | $7.47 |
| Clerk Typist II | $6.46 | $8.20 |
| Clerk Typist III | $7.63 | $9.64 |
| Clerk/Weighmaster | $6.62 | $8.53 |
| Clerk III/Juvenile Court | $6.90 | $8.68 |
| Comm. Officer I | $8.56 | $11.04 |
| Comm. Officer II | $11.45 | $14.32 |
| Comp. Operations Aide | $7.94 | $9.37 |
| Computer Operator | $8.73 | $11.15 |
| Control Clerk | $6.83 | $9.83 |
| Control Clerk/DE Oper. | $8.95 | $9.74 |
| Custodian | $5.65 | $7.44 |
| Custodian/Corrections | $5.81 | $7.36 |
| Data Control Clerk I | $5.26 | $8.18 |
| Data Control Clerk II | $7.79 | $9.48 |
| Data Entry and Ver. Oper. | $6.83 | $8.70 |
| Data Resource Technician | $7.96 | $8.27 |
| Draftsman II/Cartographer | $8.76 | $11.11 |
| Election Technician | $6.52 | $8.36 |
| Elevator Operator | $5.26 | $6.55 |
| File Clerk | $5.84 | $6.10 |
| File Dept. Supervisor | $7.18 | $8.94 |
| General Laborer | $7.25 | $9.00 |
| Housekeeping Supervisor | $11.02 | $14.88 |
| Identification Technician | $9.64 | $12.18 |
| Leg Clk Typ Writs (D. C.) | $6.94 | $8.99 |
| Leg Clk Typ Writs (Sher) | $6.94 | $8.99 |
| Main Desk Receptionist | $6.10 | $7.83 |
| Maintenance Mechanic | $8.55 | $10.52 |
| Maintenance Supverisor | $9.31 | $12.31 |
| Master Teller | $11.29 | $12.11 |
| Micro. Mach. Operator I | $6.59 | $8.34 |
| Micro. Mach. Operator II | $7.78 | $9.34 |
| Microfilm Technician | $11.34 | $13.01 |
| Motor Vehicle Inspector | $6.06 | $10.66 |
| Night Supvr/Maintenance | $7.91 | $10.46 |
| Parts Room Clerk | $8.63 | $10.40 |
| Property Clerk I | $6.93 | $8.80 |
| Property Clerk II | $8.02 | $10.19 |
| Property Service Worker | $6.39 | $8.22 |
| Real Est. Appraiser Asst. | $6.42 | $7.88 |
| Real Estate Recorder | $7.21 | $8.85 |
| Registration Clerk | $6.59 | $8.45 |
| Secretary I | $7.25 | $9.18 |
| Secretary II | $7.46 | $9.43 |
| Section Chief - P & I | $8.36 | $10.00 |
| Semi Skilled Laborer | $6.41 | $8.24 |
| Senior Real Est. Recorder | $8.36 | $10.00 |
| Supv., Youth Det. Spec. | $9.19 | $11.69 |
| Tax Auditor Trainee | $9.26 | $9.26 |
| Tax Collector | $9.00 | $12.21 |
| Vehicle License Clerk | $5.76 | $7.41 |
| Veterans Counselor | $5.88 | $11.50 |
| VDT Operator I | $6.27 | $7.66 |
| VDT Operator II | $8.53 | $8.53 |
| Warehouse Clerk I | $7.25 | $9.04 |
| Warehouse Clerk II | $7.05 | $8.83 |
| Warehouse Supervisor | $9.50 | $11.03 |
| Weed Superintendent | $8.78 | $11.98 |
| Youth Detention Special. | $9.38 | $12.09 |
All judges assigned to the panel in this case join in the entry of this Findings and Order.
Entered March 25, 1992.
_______________________________