13 CIR 256 (1999).

NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY SCHOOL

 

)

CASE NO. 967

DISTRICT NO. 79-0064, a/k/a

 

 

)

LAKE MINATARE PUBLIC SCHOOL,

 

)

a Political Subdivision of the

 

 

 

)

State of Nebraska,

 

 

 

 

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Petitioner,

 

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

)

FINDINGS AND ORDER

 

 

 

vs.

 

 

 

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

)

LAKE MINATARE EDUCATION

 

 

)

ASSOCIATION, an

 

 

 

 

)

Unincorporated Association,

 

 

 

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

)

 

 

 

 

Respondent.

 

)

 

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner: Rex R. Schultze

Perry, Guthery, Haase & Gessford, P.C.

233 South 13th Street, Suite 1400

Lincoln, NE 68508

For the Respondent: Mark D. McGuire

McGuire and Norby

604 South 14th Street, Suite 100

Lincoln, NE 68508

Before: Judges Cullan, Moore, and Anderson.

CULLAN, J:

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING

Scotts Bluff County School District No. 79-0064, a/k/a Lake Minatare Public School (hereinafter "Lake Minatare") is a political subdivision of the State of Nebraska and a Class I school district. Lake Minatare had a student enrollment of seventy-eight (78) and employed six (6) teachers during the 1998-1999 school year. Lake Minatare Education Association (hereinafter "the Education Association") is a labor organization formed by teachers employed by Lake Minatare for the purpose of representation in matters of employment relations.

Lake Minatare brought this action on March 2, 1999, seeking resolution of an industrial dispute over base salary for the 1998-1999 contract year. Pursuant to stipulation of the parties, the sole issue for the Commission to decide in this case is base salary. All other conditions of employment for the School District's teachers for the 1998-1999 contract year shall remain unchanged as previously established in collective bargaining.

ARRAY

The parties propose five (5) common array members. The Education Association proposes three (3) additional school districts for their array. For purposes of determining a proper array, the parties agree that the work, skill, and working conditions of Lake Minatare's teachers are sufficiently similar to those of the teachers in the arrays proposed by each party for the purposes of comparison under Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง 48-818 (Reissue 1998).

1. Lake Minatare's Proposed Array:

Lake Minatare proposed an array comprised of the five common school districts: Lake Alice, Haig, Cedar Canyon, Harrison and Highland. These common array members meet the Commission's size and geographic proximity guidelines.

The Commission has previously found that larger arrays are more statistically sound than smaller arrays. Adams County Dist. No. 0060 Educ. Ass'n v. Adams County School Dist. No. 0060, 10 CIR 242 (1990). In accord with this finding, the Commission has expressed that it would prefer arrays containing more than four (4) or five (5) members whenever possible. Grand Island Educ. Ass'n v. Hall County School Dist. No. 0002, 11 CIR 237 (1992); International Ass'n of Firefighters, Local No. 1575 v. City of Columbus, 11 CIR 267 (1992); Douglas County Health Dept. Employees Ass'n v. County of Douglas, 9 CIR 219 (1987). The Commission has held that arrays consisting of six (6) to eight (8) members are appropriate. O'Neill Educ. Ass'n v. Holt County School Dist. No. 7, 11 CIR 11 (1990); Red Cloud Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Red Cloud, 10 CIR 120 (1989); Logan County Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Stapleton, 10 CIR 1 (1988); Trenton Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Trenton, 9 CIR 201 (1987). Therefore, if other appropriate array members exist, the Commission finds that Lake Minatare's proposed array of five (5) is too small to be appropriate.

2. Education Association's Proposed Array:

The Education Association proposed an array of eight school districts: the five common districts proposed by Lake Minatare plus Lisco, Lewellen Elementary School, and Hyannis Elementary School. The issue before the Commission is whether one or more of the Education Association's three additional proposed array members should be included in the Commission's array with the five common array members.

When choosing an array of comparable employers, the Commission applies a well-established size guideline of one-half to twice as large. See, Yutan Educ. Ass'n v. Sauders County School Dist. No. 0009, 12 CIR 68 (1994); Crawford Teachers Ass'n v. Dawes County School Dist. No. 0071, 11 CIR 254 (1991); Red Cloud Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Red Cloud, 10 CIR 120 (1989); FOP, Sarpy Lodge No. 3 v. County of Sarpy, 10 CIR 61 (1988); Culbertson Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. Of Culbertson, 10 CIR 29 (1988); Papillion-LaVista Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Papillion-LaVista, 10 CIR 18 (1988); Logan County Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Stapleton, 10 CIR 1 (1988); Chapman Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 9, 9 CIR 293 (1988); Wayne Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. Of Wayne, 9 CIR 281 (1988); Grand Island Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 1, 9 CIR 173, 9 CIR 181 (1987); Rodeo Telephone, Inc. Employees Ass'n v. Rodeo Telephone, Inc., 9 CIR 118, 9 CIR 150, 9 CIR 170 (1987). Employers falling outside this guideline are often excluded from arrays; however, the size criteria used by the Commission is a general guideline and not a rigid rule. Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Sarpy County, 13 CIR 50 (1998); Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. County of York, 13 CIR 128; 13 CIR 157 (1998); 12 CIR 309; 12 CIR 248 (1997); Lincoln Firefighters Ass'n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 12 CIR 211; 12 CIR 221 (1996); Crawford Teachers Ass'n v. Dawes County School Dist. No. 0071, 11 CIR 254 (1991). Nonetheless, since the size guideline is based on objective criteria, it provides predictability and should not be lightly disregarded when a sufficient number of comparables which meet the guidelines exist. See, School Dist. of West Point v. West Point Education Ass'n, 8 CIR 315 (1986); Richland Teachers Educ. Ass'n v. Colfax County School Dist. No. 0001, 11 CIR 286 (1992).

The Commission has held that if potential array members share similar work, skills, and working conditions, the Commission will include all of the schools submitted in the array unless there is specific evidence that to do so would be otherwise inappropriate or would make the array unmanageable. Geneva Educ. Ass'n v. Fillmore County School Dist. No. 0075, 11 CIR 38 (1990); Lynch Educ. Ass'n v. Boyd County School Dist. No. 0036, 11 CIR 25 (1990). Even in such cases, the Commission does not disregard the size and geographic guidelines. See, Id. The Commission need not consider every conceivable comparable, but only "a sufficient number in a representative array so that it can determine whether the wages paid or the benefits conferred are comparable." Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. County of York, 13 CIR 128; 13 CIR 157 (1998).

Lisco is fifty-four miles from Lake Minatare, Lewellen is eighty-one (81) miles from Lake Minatare, and Hyannis is ninety-two (92) miles from Lake Minatare. All are sufficiently proximate for inclusion in the array.

Lewellyn and Hyannis both meet the Commission's size guidelines with student enrollments of sixty-two (62) and forty-nine (49) respectively. Lisco falls outside this guideline. Lisco's student enrollment of thirty-four (34) is less than one-half the number of students enrolled with Lake Minatare. The Commission finds that both Lewellyn and Hyannis should be included in the array, but that Lisco should be excluded. (See Table 1 for size and geographical proximity information)

3. The Commission's Array:

The Commission finds that an array composed of the five common array members proposed by the parties plus Lewellyn and Hyannis is an appropriate array for determining prevalent compensation in this case. The Commission's array shall therefore be comprised of the following seven (7) school districts: Lewellyn, Hyannis, Lake Alice, Haig, Cedar Canyon, Harrison and Highland.

BASE PAY

Table 2 sets forth the relevant information for determining the prevalent base salary. The parties are in agreement concerning required adjustments of compensation figures to allow for differences in contract days and the cost of benefits provided by the seven school districts in the Commission's array. Lake Minatare provides no benefits while all but one of the school districts in the Commission's array do provide benefits. With application of the agreed adjustments the base salary determined comparable for Lake Minatare for the 1998-1999 contract year in dispute equals $20,944.00.

The base salary which the Commission has calculated for Lake Minatare is higher than the base salaries at the school districts in the array, because Lake Minatare provides no benefits to its teachers. The Commission calculated the base salary using the midpoint of total compensation costs for the array, mirroring the calculations made by both parties to this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

1. Respondent shall pay the teachers a base salary of $20,944 for the 1998-1999 school year.

2. All other terms and conditions of employment for the 1998-1999 school year shall be as previously established in collective bargaining.

3. Adjustments in compensation resulting from the final order shall be paid ratably over the twelve months of the contract period. The amount due for that contract pay period already elapsed shall be paid in a single sum with the payroll check issued next following this final order.

All judges assigned to the panel in this case join in the entry of this Findings and Order.

Entered May 28, 1999.