14 CIR 59 (2002) 

NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Before: Judges Orr, Council, and Lindahl

ORR, J.

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:

This action was brought by Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 24 (hereinafter, "Petitioner") on Sept 27, 2001 pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818. Petitioner is the collective bargaining agent for the bargaining unit consisting of employees who have the job classifications of Police Officer, Sergeant, and Captain employed by the City of Grand Island, Nebraska (hereinafter, "Respondent"). Petitioner seeks the resolution of an industrial dispute over wages and other terms and conditions of employment for the 2001-2002 contract year. After an unsuccessful attempt at mediation, the parties conducted a Pretrial conference on February 8, 2002. The Trial began on February 28, 2002, but the Petitioner was granted a continuance to clear up some evidentiary concerns. A second Pretrial was held on March 22, 2002 and the Trial was continued on April 29 and 30, 2002.

ARRAY:

The threshold issue in any § 48-818 wage action is whether the proposed array of employers presented by the parties will be determined to be comparable under the statute. In selecting employment units in reasonably similar labor markets for the purpose of comparison as to wage rate and other benefits, the question is whether, as a matter of fact, the units selected for comparison are sufficiently similar and have enough like characteristics or qualities to make a comparison appropriate. Lincoln Co. Sheriff’s Emp. Ass’n v. County of Lincoln, 216 Neb. 274, 343 N.W.2d 735 (1984). As a general rule, the factors most often used to determine comparability are geographic proximity, population, job descriptions, job skills, and job conditions. Douglas Cty. Health Dept. Emp. Ass’n v. Douglas Cty., 229 Neb. 301, 427 N.W.2d 28 (1988); AFSCME Local 2088 v. County of Douglas, 208 Neb. 511, 304 N.W.2d 368 (1981), modified 209 Neb. 597, 309 N.W.2d 65.

With respect to geographical proximity, "we believe there are strong policies in favor of using an array of comparable Nebraska employers rather than using employers from outside the State of Nebraska, when an appropriate array for the purposes within the state exists . . . [W]hen given a choice between sufficient comparables within the state, we believe it is more appropriate for the CIR to confine itself to comparables within the state." Lincoln Co. Sheriff's Emp. Ass’n v. Co. of Lincoln, 2l6 Neb. 274, 278-79, 343 N.W.2d 735, 739 (l984); and IAFF Local 83l v. City of North Platte, 6 CIR l, l0 (l982), and International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Columbus, ll CIR 267, 270 (l992).

In fact, "where there are local comparisons which can or should be made, they may not be disregarded if in fact it appears from the evidence that the local employers are comparable in that they meet the requirements of 48-818." AFSCME Local 2088 v. County of Douglas, 208 Neb. 5ll, 5l9, 304 N.W.2d 368, 373 (l98l).

Another factor often brought before the Commission to determine comparability is balance. Balance of population, in terms of comparability, occurs when approximately half of the array cities are above the compared to array city and half are below the compared to array city. With respect to balance the Commission has held in the past that it will not assume that it automatically impacts array members. International Ass'n of Firefighters v. City of Columbus, ll CIR 267, 270 (l992); Nickerson School Educ. Ass'n v. Dodge County School Dist. No. l9, ll CIR l59, l64-65 (l99l), and Banner County Educ. Ass'n v. Banner County School Dist. No. 000l, l2 CIR l06, l08 (l994).

Applying the foregoing principles where appropriate, and the hereinafter cited authorities for exceptions to said foregoing rules, the Commission finds as follows:

The parties agreed that three (3) of the array cities proposed by the Petitioner are sufficiently similar to Grand Island, and, thus, should be used for comparison purposes in determining the prevalent wage rates and conditions of employment for the subject bargaining unit. The common array cities are Fremont, NE; Hastings, NE; and North Platte, NE. These three common array cities shall be included in the array. In addition, Petitioner urged the Commission that Ames, IA; Fort Dodge, IA; Council Bluffs, IA; and Bellevue, NE should be included in the array for comparison purposes. Respondent proposed that Kearney, NE and Norfolk, NE be included in the array for comparison purposes.

Respondent limited its array search to cities in Nebraska. Respondent's other criteria consisted of geographic proximity, population, square miles, and similarity of work, skills and working conditions. Respondent looked for similarities in the duties as set out in the array cities organizational charts and job descriptions.

In addition to similarity of work, skills and working conditions, Petitioner used the criteria of balance (i.e., approximately one-half of its array cities larger in population than Grand Island and approximately one-half smaller), whether or not the array city had a collective bargaining agreement, and the number of cities used in the array. Petitioner extended its array search to cities located outside of Nebraska because its expert felt that there were not enough comparable Nebraska cities to have a statistically reliable and balanced sample of cities.

Of the nine (9) array members offered by the parties, six (6) are Nebraska employers. All of the Nebraska employers are within the Commission’s size and proximity guidelines. (See Table 1). Both this Commission and the Nebraska Supreme Court have expressed a preference for Nebraska employers. "We believe that there are strong policies in favor of using an array of comparable Nebraska employers rather than using employers from outside the State of Nebraska, when an appropriate array for that purpose within the state exists. . . . [W]hen given a choice between sufficient comparables within the state and comparables without the state, we believe it is more appropriate for the CIR to confine itself to comparables within the state." Lincoln County Sheriff's Employees Ass'n, Local 546 v. International Bhd. of Police Officers, 216 Neb. 274, 278-79, 343 N.W.2d 735, 739 (1984). Although the Commission prefers an array larger than five, we have used arrays of five or less cities in the past. See International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local No. 1575 v. City of Columbus, 11 CIR 267 (1992); Service Employees Int'l Union Local No. 226 v. Westside Community School Dist. No. 66, 11 CIR 75 (1991); Nebraska Western College Educ. Ass'n v. Western Technical Community College Area, 10 CIR 101 (1989); Fraternal Order of Police, Sarpy Lodge No. 3 v. County of Sarpy, 10 CIR 61 (1988).

Petitioner contends that the Commission should include out-of-state employers in its array to achieve balance. Of the six proposed Nebraska employers, five are smaller than Grand Island and one is larger. Petitioner argues that there is a direct correlation between population and wages, in that the higher the population of the array city the more it pays in wages. Respondent argues that no such correlation exists in this case. While it may be true that including out-of-state employers in the final array would achieve balance in population in this case, the Commission declines to do so. "The Commission will not assume that balance automatically impacts array members. . . . Absent credible evidence indicating balance is linked to the proposed array members, the Commission will not use it as a criteria in its selection process." Nickerson School Educ. Ass'n v. Dodge County School Dist. No. 19, 11 CIR 159, 164-65 (1991). Sufficient evidence of a direct relationship between wages and population was not presented in this case. Indeed, North Platte, a smaller array city by population, actually pays higher wages than Grand Island, a more populated city. On the basis of the evidence, the Commission finds there is no such correlation between population and pay. Accordingly, we will not consider balance as a factor in choosing the array.

The Petitioner also urges that the Commission consider whether or not the proposed array city has a collective bargaining agreement. The Petitioner argues that proposed array cities without contracts often do not have the same benefits, such as providing court attendance pay to their employees, rules outlining citizens complaints about officers behavior, or shift bidding rights of employees. Respondent argues that the absence of a collective bargaining agreement has no impact on work, skills, or working conditions.

The evidence presented at trial does not indicate that the absence of a collective bargaining agreement has an impact on work, skills and working conditions. For example, neither Kearney nor Norfolk have collective bargaining agreements. Kearney’s wage comparability survey shows that Kearney provides court attendance pay with a minimum of two (2) hours straight time guaranteed. Conversely, the cities of North Platte, Fremont, Ames, Hastings, Fort Dodge, and Council Bluffs all have collective bargaining agreements, yet none of them have a provision for the city to follow when dealing with a citizen’s complaint about an officer’s behavior, something the Petitioner suggests would usually be found in array cites with collective bargaining agreements. The evidence presented at trial does not show a correlation between benefits provided and a collective bargaining agreement. The Commission will likewise not consider the absence of a collective bargaining agreement as a factor in determining the array.

The Respondent also presented considerable evidence on the structure of collective bargaining statutes in Iowa that go into determining wages for the proposed Iowa array cities, such as considering the ability to pay and the ability for the governmental agency to tax. Conversely in Nebraska, the Supreme Court has stated that the Commission cannot consider an employer’s ability to pay when determining comparable wages and fringe benefits. Nebraska City Educ. Ass’n v. School Dist. Of Neb. City, 201 Neb. 303, 267 N.W.2d 530 (1978). Furthermore, unlike testing for officers in Nebraska, other statutes in Iowa require additional physical fitness examinations for officers.

For the above stated reasons, the Commission declines to include any of the out-of-state array cities.

In deciding this case, the Commission is cognizant of the fact that the use of one array in a particular case does not require that it be used in a subsequent case involving the same parties. Omaha Police Union v. City of Omaha, 11 CIR 114, 120 (1991). However, the Commission is not required to use past arrays in the present proceeding.

The Court of Industrial Relations should not be compelled to compare the same school districts in every case that comes before it involving the same school districts . . . We are not prepared to say that merely because one set of school districts was deemed adequate in one case, a different set of school districts would necessarily be inadequate in a different case, particularly where different evidence is adduced.

It appears to us that what we have said with regard to school districts is equally applicable with regard to other governmental subdivisions. AFSCME, Local 2088 v. County of Douglas, 208 Neb. 511, 518, 304 N.W.2d 368, 373 (1981) (citing Crete Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Crete, 193 Neb. 245, 226 N.W.2d 752 (1975)). As in any case, the determination of the appropriate array depends upon the evidence presented in that particular case.

The issue of whether Bellevue should be included in the array was the subject of considerable debate in this case and requires more thorough consideration by the Commission. The parties did not stipulate to the similarity of work, skills, and working conditions for the Bellevue police officers. The Petitioner attested that it chose Bellevue because it was comparable to Grand Island’s population and it was located within Nebraska. Respondent asserts that the working conditions in Bellevue along with the fact that Bellevue is located in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (hereinafter, "MSA") create a non-comparable array city.

In the past, the Commission has used the location of a proposed array city in a Metropolitan Statistical Area as a factor in eliminating such city from the array. See Lincoln Firefighters Ass'n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 8 CIR 3l, 44 (l985); Grand Island Education Ass'n v. School Dist. of Grand Island, 9 CIR l88, l92 (l987), and Grand Island Education Ass'n v. Hall County School Dist., ll CIR 237, 24l (l992). While being located in an MSA does not in itself require the elimination of a particular array city, it is a factor in considering the work, skills, and working conditions of the employees in the MSA as compared to the subject array city.

However, the Commission has considered an MSA to comprise a single labor market and has declined to include multiple employers from a single MSA in an array because of concern that to do so would skew the data by using the same labor market twice, so-called "double dipping". See Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. County of Douglas, 11 CIR 189 (1992), City of Omaha v. Omaha Police Union Local 101, 5 CIR 171,171 (1981).

The Omaha MSA includes Cass, Douglas, Sarpy, and Washington Counties in Nebraska, and Pottawatamie County in Iowa. The Petitioner requests that the Commission consider selecting both Bellevue and Council Bluffs for the proposed array. If the Commission were to select both Bellevue and Council Bluffs it would be "double-dipping" into the Omaha MSA. The Commission declines to include Council Bluffs for this reason, as well as its location in Iowa.

Bellevue is a part of the Omaha metropolitan area. As pointed out by the Respondent, Bellevue is not a community with a separate and distinct identity, as is Grand Island. Within Bellevue’s jurisdiction is Offutt Air Force Base, which has 15,000 people who occupy Bellevue’s streets, are involved in traffic accidents and become involved in criminal activity. Those 15,000 people are not counted in Bellevue’s population. In addition, Bellevue deals with a significant amount of commuting traffic through Omaha on Kennedy Freeway. Further, Bellevue’s police department has a large number of specialized units including SWAT, K-9 and Narcotics. The police department at Bellevue is party to an inter-local cooperative agreement that allows Bellevue police officers to exercise jurisdiction in Douglas and Sarpy Counties. This jurisdiction allows Bellevue police officers to pursue criminals into Omaha and for Omaha police officers to pursue criminals into Bellevue. Bellevue’s Chief of Police testified that the main influence on Bellevue’s police department with respect to wage determinations was the Omaha metropolitan area. As a result, Bellevue’s police department has created a lateral entry program and educational incentives to compete with other metro area employers.

The source of applicants for employment with Bellevue and Grand Island Police Departments are different. Bellevue is part of a centralized organization for officer selection. The program screens for applicants in the jurisdictions of Council Bluffs, Bellevue, Blair, Elkhorn, Ralston, Papillion, LaVista, Douglas County, Sarpy County and Washington County. The program administers the written exam for the police officer applicants, and provides the participating jurisdictions a list of passing candidates interested in obtaining employment in their jurisdictions. Applicants for the Grand Island police force take a physical agility test called the Leopat and a written examination administered by the Human Resources Department at Grand Island. The residency history of the officers hired at the Grand Island Police Department in 1999, 2000, and 2001 shows that the vast majority of police officer hires at the Grand Island Police Department resided in Grand Island prior to hire. This evidence clearly shows a vast difference in the hiring pool between Grand Island and Bellevue.

The greater weight of the evidence presented at the trial supports the conclusion that there are significant differences between the Bellevue Police Department and the Grand Island Department, which differences affect the work, skills, and working conditions of the police officers. The evidence further reveals very few, if any, contacts between these jurisdictions. For these reasons, Bellevue shall be excluded from the array in this action.

Petitioner argues that Kearney and Norfolk should not be placed in the array because they do not have collective bargaining agreements and do not share similar work, skills and working conditions with Grand Island. Respondent argues that they do share similar work, skills and working conditions. As stated above, we will not consider the absence of a collective bargaining agreement as a factor in determining the array. Therefore, the only issue is whether Kearney and Norfolk share similar work, skills, and working conditions. Respondent’s witnesses, William Mizner and Daniel Lynch, gave similar explanations of the effects of gang and methamphetamine activity on the work, skills, and working conditions of their officers in Kearney and Norfolk. Petitioner’s expert witness, as well as a police officer from Grand Island, both testified that the officers in Grand Island perform the same work, and feel the same effects of gang and drug activity as do police officers in both Kearney and Norfolk. We will, therefore, include Kearney and Norfolk in the array because they share similar work, skills, and working conditions.

The Commission’s array shall consist of Kearney, Norfolk, Fremont, North Platte, and Hastings.

WAGES AND STEP PAY PLAN:

To determine the minimum and maximum wages for the Respondent’s positions, we look to the minimum and maximum wages paid by members of the array. The Commission, in determining the minimums and maximums finds that the midpoint wages set forth in Tables 2-4 are the prevalent wages to be paid for the three positions in the bargaining unit. In Table 4, the Commission declines to place Captains at North Platte because the position of Captain at North Platte does not perform similar duties to the position of Captain at Grand Island and likewise the positions are not comparable.

Respondent’s present step pay plan provides for progression by seniority through eight (8) steps over six (6) years, with an additional step referred to as Step I for the most senior existing employees. As of 1996, no newly hired employees can progress beyond Step 8. Those employees currently on Step I receive lesser cost of living increases each year, in an effort to eventually eliminate Step I. Considering those cities in the array that maintain a step pay plan, the prevalent number of years to reach maximum is 8, the prevalent number of steps is 8 and the method of progression through the pay plan is based on seniority and performance. To be comparable, Respondent’s step pay plan should be changed to provide for progressing through eight (8) steps over eight (8) years to reach the maximum pay rate, retaining seniority and performance as the method of progression, and eliminating Step I from the current schedule.

FRINGE BENEFITS:

There are certain fringes which we believe are management prerogatives and we will not address the following in this Order: the employer’s ability to institute an 8-hour workday, shift coverage, and paid lunch/break periods.

Respondent currently provides both health and dental insurance under one plan. Both the employer and the employee contribute to this plan. Table 5 shows that the prevalent practice is bi-modal (i.e., health and dental insurance under separate plans). Two (2) array cities (Fremont and Norfolk) provide health and dental insurance under one plan and two (2) array cities (Kearney and North Platte) provide health and dental insurance separately. The fifth array city (Hastings) does not provide any dental insurance and is therefore not applicable to this comparison. Since there is no clear prevalent, we will leave things as they are, and retain the combined health and dental insurance plan, which the Respondent currently provides. Respondent should pay $253.66 or (97%) of the single monthly premium and the employee should pay $10.51 or (3%) of the single monthly premium. Respondent should pay $491.74 or (81%) of the family monthly premium and the employee should pay $108.50 or (19%) of the family monthly premium.

The Respondent is above the prevalent practice relative to life insurance in that it currently carries a $30,000 policy for basic life coverage on each employee. Even though the Respondent is $500 above the prevalent practice, we will not make a change to the life insurance because the $500 difference is negligible.

With respect to the premium for the life insurance coverage, the Respondent is below the prevalent practice in that it pays $4.80 per month for life insurance per employee. Even though this is below the prevalent practice we will not make a change to the life insurance premium, given the favorable rate currently in place. The percentage the Respondent pays for the life insurance premium should remain at 100%.

Overtime Practices

We find that there is no clear prevalent for some of the overtime practices. Therefore, the Respondent should maintain all of their current methods of providing overtime.

The following fringe benefits shall remain unchanged because they are comparable:

1) Sick leave

1. Number of days earned per year: 12
2. Maximum accumulation of sick leave days: 120
3. Applied to vacation: No
4. Converted to cash after maximum accumulation is reached: Yes
5. Converted to cash upon resignation or dismissal: No
6. Used for family: Yes

2) Funeral leave: Yes; allowance of three days for immediate family

3) Vacation schedule – Vacation leave

1. Second Year employees shall receive 10 days of vacation
2. Carry-over from year to year: Yes
3. Converted to cash at the end of the year: No
4. Converted to cash upon resignation, dismissal, retirement, or death: Yes

4) Personal days: Yes

5) Retirement/pensions

1. Percentage of contribution: 6%
2. 457/401k plan: Yes

6) Disability plans

a. Long term: Yes

b. Short term: No

7) Special compensation practices

1. Longevity pay: No
2. Court attendance pay: Yes

i. Minimum amount guaranteed: Yes

ii. Paid time: 2 hrs.

3. Shift Differential pay: No
4. Educational assistance: Yes

i. Incentive pay: No

5. Uniform monetary allowance: Yes
6. Uniform furnished: No
7. Call in pay: Yes

i. Minimum amount guaranteed: Yes

8) Working out of class: Yes; no benefit amount

9) Law enforcement equipment provided

1. Badge
2. Shotgun
3. Vest

10) Injury Leave: Yes

11) Special pay for Polygraph Operator: No

The Commission makes the following findings as to non-comparable fringe benefits:

1) Sick Leave – Respondent is above the comparable in that it allows 50% of sick leave to be converted to cash upon retirement. It should decrease its cash conversion upon retirement to 30%.

2) Sick Leave – Respondent is above the comparable in that it allows 50% of sick leave to be converted to cash upon death. It should decrease its cash conversion upon death to 37.50%.

3) Sick Leave – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows employees to use sick leave for funerals at the chief’s discretion in addition to Funeral Leave. It should decrease the benefit and not allow employees to use sick leave for funerals.

4) Vacation Schedule – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows First Year employees 10 days of vacation. It should decrease this benefit and give the First Year employees 9 days of vacation.

5) Vacation Schedule – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows Fifth Year employees 15 days of vacation. It should decrease this benefit and give the Fifth Year employees 14 days of vacation.

6) Vacation Schedule – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows Tenth Year employees 17 days of vacation. It should decrease this benefit and give the Tenth year employees 16 days of vacation.

7) Vacation Schedule – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows Twenty-year employees 21 days of vacation. It should decrease this benefit and give the Twenty-year employees 20 days of vacation.

8) Vacation Schedule – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows up to 22 days of vacation for employees over twenty years. It should decrease this benefit and change the maximum days of vacation to 20.

9) Vacation Leave – Respondent is above the comparable in that it allows a maximum carry-over of 256 hours of vacation from year to year. It should decrease its vacation leave carry-over to 253 hours.

10) Holidays – Respondent is below the comparable in that it allows only 9 days for holidays per year. It should increase its holidays to 10 holidays per year.

11) Holidays – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows 2.5% regular rate of compensation if an employee is scheduled to work on a holiday. It should decrease its scheduled holiday rate to 2.3% times the regular rate of compensation.

12) Holidays – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows 2.5% regular rate of compensation if any employee is called in to work on a holiday. It should decrease its called in holiday rate to 2.4% times the regular rate of compensation.

13) Personal Days – Respondent is above the prevalent in that it allows 2 personal days. It should decrease the number of personal days to 1.

14) Special Compensation Practices – The Respondent is above the comparable in that it provides stand-by pay. This practice should be eliminated.

15) Special Compensation Practices – The Respondent is above the prevalent practice in the rate of pay for court attendance pay in that it pays 1.5 times the regular rate. Respondent should decrease the rate to 1 times the regular rate.

16) Special Compensation Practices – The Respondent is both below and above the prevalent practice in that it pays 100% for tuition, nothing for books and nothing for lab fees. It should decrease the rate of tuition pay to 90% and pay 90% of the cost of books and lab fees.

17) Special Compensation Practices –The Respondent is above the comparable in that it provides $75.83 per month for uniforms and $75.83 for non-uniforms. It should decrease these amounts to $48.83 for uniforms and $56.83 for non-uniforms.

18) Special Compensation Practices – The Respondent is above the prevalent in that it provides for Union Dues Checkoff. It should remove this practice.

19) Special Compensation Practices – The Respondent is below the prevalent practice in how much time is guaranteed for call-in pay in that it only guarantees 1 hour, but it is above the rate paid in that it pays 1.5 times the regular rate. Respondent should increase the time paid to 2 hours and decrease the rate to 1 times the regular rate.

20) Employee Assistance Program – The Respondent is above the prevalent practice in that it provides an employee assistance program. It should eliminate this practice.

21) Law Enforcement Equipment – The Respondent is both above and below the prevalent practice in that it provides handcuffs and does not provide brass, a whistle, a night stick, a case, a flashlight, batteries, weapons, ammo clips and a belt. It should amend its practice by not providing handcuffs and providing brass, a whistle, a night stick, a case, a flashlight, batteries, a weapon, ammo clips, and a belt.

22) Injury Leave Policy – The Respondent is above the Prevalent practice in allowing 2080 duration hours for injury leave. It should decrease this amount to 1080 duration hours.

23) Special Pay – The Respondent is above the comparable practice in that it allows special pay for field officer training. It should eliminate this practice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the fiscal year 2001-2002, the following shall be effect as of January 1, 2001.

1) Respondent’s step pay plan shall be changed to provide for progressing through eight (8) steps over eight (8) years to reach the maximum pay rate, retaining seniority and performance as the method of progression, eliminating Step I from the current schedule.

2) Petitioner’s wages for the fiscal year 2001-2002 shall be as follows:

Job Classification Minimum Maximum

Police Officer $12.59 $17.60

Police Sergeant $15.72 $21.54

Police Captain $17.50 $24.01

3) The Respondent shall retain the combined health and dental insurance plan, which it currently provides.

4) The Respondent shall retain its current life insurance policy and premium.

5) The Respondent shall retain their current method of providing overtime.

6) Respondent shall pay $253.66 or (97%) of the single monthly premium and the employee shall pay $10.51 or (3%) of the single monthly premium. Respondent shall pay $491.74 or (81%) of the family monthly premium and the employee shall pay $108.50 or (19%) of the family monthly premium.

7) Respondent shall decrease cash conversion of sick leave upon retirement to 30%.

8) Respondent shall decrease its cash conversion of sick leave upon death to 37.50%.

9) The use of sick leave for funeral shall be eliminated.

10) First Year employees shall receive 9 days of vacation.

11) Fifth Year employees shall receive 14 days of vacation.

12) Tenth year employees shall receive16 days of vacation.

13) Twenty-year employees shall receive 20 days of vacation.

14) Maximum days of vacation for employees over 20 years shall be 20.

15) Respondent shall decrease its vacation leave carry-over to 253 hours.

16) Respondent shall increase its holidays to 10 holidays per year.

17) The "scheduled" holiday rate shall decrease to 2.3%.

18) The Respondent shall decrease its "called-in" holiday rate to 2.4%.

19) Respondent shall decrease the number of personal days to 1 personal day.

20) The practice of paying stand-by pay shall be eliminated.

21) The Respondent shall decrease the rate paid for court attendance to 1 times the regular rate.

22) The Respondent shall decrease the rate of tuition pay to 90% and pay 90% of the cost of books and lab fees.

23) The Respondent shall decrease the amounts provided for uniform allowance to $48.83 for uniforms and $56.83 for non-uniforms.

24) Union Dues Checkoff shall be eliminated.

25) The employee assistance program shall be eliminated.

26) The Respondent shall not provide handcuffs to its officers and shall provide brass, a whistle, a night stick, a case, a flashlight, batteries, a weapon, ammo clips and a belt.

27) Duration hours for injury leave shall decrease to 1080.

28) The Respondent shall increase the time guaranteed to 2 hours for call-in pay and decrease the rate to 1 times the regular rate.

29) Special pay for field officer training shall be eliminated.

All other terms and conditions of employment are not effected by this Order.

All panel judges join in the entry of this Order.

Entered July 10, 2002.