| CITY OF WEST POINT, | | | CASE NO. 904 |
| NEBRASKA, | | | REPRESENTATION DOC. NO. 307 |
| | | ||
| Petitioner, | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | |
| | | ||
| GENERAL DRIVERS & HELPERS | | | FINDINGS AND ORDER |
| LOCAL UNION NO. 554 AFFILIATED | | | |
| WITH THE INTERNATIONAL | | | |
| BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, | | | |
| CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND | | | |
| HELPERS OF AMERICA, | | | |
| | | ||
| Respondent. | | |
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Margaret Stine
Harding & Ogborn
800 Lincoln Square
121 S. 13th St.
Lincoln, NE 68501-2028
For the Respondent: M. H. Weinberg
Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C.
9290 W. Dodge Rd. Suite 205
Omaha, NE 68114
Before: Judges Flowers, McFarland and DeLay
FLOWERS, J:
NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS
A Petition was filed pursuant to CIR Rule 12 by the City of West Point, seeking to amend an earlier certification of a bargaining unit of employees employed by the City of West Point. The bargaining unit was certified by the Commission in General Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 554 v. City of West Point, Case No. 755 on June 27, 1989. The unit is described as:
All linemen, line foremen, maintenance workers, diesel plant operators, diesel plant operator (assistants), diesel plant supervisors, water and sewer systems operators, and street maintenance foremen employed by the City of West Point.
Petitioner is seeking the removal of three job positions from the bargaining unit on the grounds that these positions are supervisory within the meaning of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-801(9) (1993). Petitioner argues that the diesel plant supervisor, electric distribution line foremen and street maintenance foremen should be removed from the bargaining unit because they supervise the work of the other members of the bargaining unit.
At issue are:
1. Whether the diesel plant supervisor, electric distribution line foremen and street maintenance foremen are supervisors within the meaning of § 48-801(9).
2. Whether the diesel plant supervisor, electric distribution line foremen and street maintenance foremen should be excluded from the bargaining unit.
3. If the diesel plant supervisor, electric distribution line foremen and street maintenance foremen are excluded from the bargaining unit, whether any of their work should be included in the bargaining unit.
FACTS
The Commission finds the following facts to be true. The bargaining unit in dispute was first certified on September 12, 1972 in In the Matter of: City of West Point and Teamsters Public Employees Union, Local No. 594, Case No. 67. The composition of the bargaining unit was determined by a stipulation entered into between the parties. The bargaining unit included the positions of municipal power plant operators, street department employees, full- and part-time custodians and billing clerks, sewer and water department supervisor and electric department line supervisor.
In 1989, the parties were again before the Commission in General Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 554 v. City of West Point, Case No. 755. The dispute arose when the City of West Point ("City") refused to negotiate with Local 554 ("Union"), stating that it doubted the majority status of the Union and suggesting that the Union file an election petition with the Commission.
A Joint Stipulation was filed with the Commission in General Drivers on May 26, 1989, stating that "the appropriate bargaining unit is as follows:
All linemen, line foremen, maintenance workers, diesel plant operators, diesel plant operator (assistants), diesel plant supervisors, water and sewer systems operators, and street maintenance foremen employed by the City of West Point."
The Commission issued an Order of Election on May 30, 1989 finding "[t]hat the parties are in agreement as to the composition and appropriateness of the bargaining unit . . ." and "[t]hat the agreed upon unit is appropriate and that an election should be conducted as soon as possible." The Union won the election, and the Commission issued a Certification Order on June 27, 1989.
The job descriptions for the diesel plant supervisor, electric distribution line foremen and street maintenance foremen were adopted by the West Point City Council in March, 1989 and have remained unchanged since that date. The actual work duties of these three positions have also remained unchanged since 1989.
DISCUSSION
The parties' 1989 stipulation stated that the stipulated-to bargaining unit is "the appropriate bargaining unit." In addition, the Commission's Order of Election stated that "the agreed upon unit is appropriate. . . ." Although the parties' stipulation does not state that none of the employees in the bargaining unit perform supervisory duties, an "appropriate bargaining unit" means, by implication, that the unit is an appropriate unit pursuant to Nebraska law.
The Petitioner has acquiesced in the propriety of the existing bargaining unit through six years of bargaining history and has judicially admitted the propriety of the bargaining unit in its stipulation in General Drivers, Case No. 755.
"Stipulations voluntarily entered into between the parties to a cause or their attorneys, for the government of their conduct and the control of their rights during the trial or progress of the cause, will be respected and enforced by the courts, where such stipulations are not contrary to good morals or sound public policy. Courts will enforce valid stipulations unless some good cause is shown for declining to do so, especially where the stipulations have been acted upon so that the parties could not be placed in status quo." Martin v. Martin, 188 Neb. 393, 397-98, 197 N.W.2d 388, 391 (1972). "Parties are bound by stipulations voluntarily made and relief from such stipulations after judgment is warranted only under exceptional circumstances." Id. at 398, 197 N.W.2d at 391.
North Platte Police Officers Union, IBPO, Local 582 v. City of North Platte, 3 CIR 647 (1979) and FOP, Lodge No. 11 v. City of Seward, 7 CIR 74 (1983), both cited by Petitioner, are readily distinguishable from the present proceeding. In North Platte, the Commission rejected the parties' stipulation prior to the conclusion of the case and as part of the rendition of the judgment in that case. In Seward, the Commission refused to bind the parties to a "bargaining unit" stipulation executed in a prior proceeding where the job duties of the bargaining unit employees had subsequently changed and the stipulation was between different parties.
For the foregoing reasons Petitioner's request that the bargaining unit be amended is denied.
Entered March 7, 1996.
_______________________________