|NEBRASKA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES|||||CASE NO. 898|
|LOCAL UNION 251 affiliated||||
|with THE AMERICAN FEDERATION||||
|OF STATE, COUNTY, AND||||
|MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, And||||
|MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, An||||
|OTOE COUNTY, NEBRASKA,||||
This matter came on for hearing on June 23, 1995 upon Petitioner's Motion For a Show Cause Hearing and For an Order Enforcing the Status Quo, filed June 15, 1995. Petitioner was represented by M.H. Weinberg, and Respondent was represented by John Liakos.
Evidence was adduced and the Commission, being duly advised in the premises, finds and orders as follows:
1. On May 1, 1995 the Commission entered an Order directing that, "The employment status of all full-time and regular part-time employees of the Department of Roads and Sanitation of Otoe County, Nebraska shall not be altered in any way pending disposition of the petition in this case by the Commission."
2. During the time period of July 1, 1994 to June 30, 1995, the Respondent provided the bargaining unit employees with their choice of three different Blue Cross Blue Shield ("PCBS") health insurance plans: custom flex, PPO and HMO. The premium cost to the bargaining unit members was different for each of the three plans. PPO coverage for bargaining unit members was provided without any employee contribution. Bargaining unit members were required to contribute the additional cost of HMO or custom flex coverage if such an option was selected by the employee.
3. On or about May, 1995, Respondent was notified by BCBS that the monthly premium costs for the three health insurance plans would change for the time period of July 1, 1995 to June 30, 1996. The monthly premium cost for the PPO plan would increase by $13.66. The HMO plan cost would decrease to become the least costly plan at a monthly cost of $11.50 below the former cost of the PPO plan.
4. On June 12, 1995, the Otoe County Board voted to reduce the employer contribution to employee health coverage, effective July 1, 1995, from $191.81 per month (existing PPO premium) to $180.24 per month (new HMO premium).
5. The Commission finds that such action changes the status quo in violation of the May 1, 1995 Order of the Commission. The status quo required the Respondent to provide PPO coverage with no employee contribution and to provide HMO or custom flex coverage with employee contributions based on the additional cost of such coverage as compared with the cost of PPO coverage.
6. Respondent's verbal Motion to Dismiss, made at the close of Petitioner's case on June 23, 1995, which was taken under advisement, is hereby overruled.
Entered June 29, 1995.