15 CIR 223 (2006) 

NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

Filed May 2, 2006 

APPEARANCES:

Before:  Judges Orr, Burger and Lindahl

ORR, J.

After the trial of this matter, the Commission entered a Findings and Order on March 20, 2006. The Petitioner timely filed a Request for Post-Trial Conference as provided for in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-816(7)(d), which allows the Commission to hear from the parties on those portions of the findings and order which are not based upon or which mischaracterize evidence in the record. The parties both waived the requirement that the conference was held within 10 days of the filing of the Post-Trial Conference Request. A Post-Trial Conference was held on April 17, 2006. The Petitioner was represented by its attorney, Thomas F. Dowd. The Respondent was represented by its attorneys, A. Stevenson Bogue and James R. Thibodeau.

            The Petitioner’s Request for Post-trial Conference raised three areas of objection to the Commission’s Order of March 20, 2006. Those areas are dealt with as follows:

1.  Offset of Health and Dental Insurance   

The Petitioner argues that the Commission did not specifically find that an offset should be ordered with respect to health insurance and dental insurance. The Respondent argues that the Commission did find an offset, whereby the Respondent must subtract the amount due to the employer for health and dental insurance from the amount owed to the employee for wages.

The Commission ordered the Respondent to decrease its percentages of dental insurance premiums paid for individual coverage from 93% to 81% and for family dental coverage from 85% to 72%. The Commission also ordered the Respondent to decrease its percentage of health insurance premium paid for family coverage to 80% for the entire year, to decrease its percentage of health insurance premium paid for two-party coverage to 77% for the entire year, and to decrease its percentage of health insurance premium paid for single coverage to 95% for the entire year. While it is clear from the opinion that health insurance should be reduced for the entire year, resulting in a subtraction, reduction or offset, it is not clear that dental insurance should be reduced for the entire year. Therefore, the Commission orders that dental insurance should also be reduced resulting in a subtraction or offset for the entire year.

 2.  2/4 Party Health Insurance

The Petitioner argues that with respect to 2/4 party health insurance, the Commission should not change the current premium percentage reducing the percentage from 88% to 77%. The Petitioner argues that, because only three array counties out of seven carry 2/4 party health insurance, the Commission cannot determine a benefit where there is not a prevalent number of matches.

In past cases, the Commission has decided benefits where there are not a prevalent number of matches. See Lincoln Firefighters Ass’n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln , 12 CIR 248 (1997). Affirmed. 253 Neb. 837, 572 N.W.2d 369 (1998). (Other cites include 12 CIR 211, 12 CIR 221 (1996) and 12 CIR 309 (1997)). In Lincoln Firefighters on Table 43, the Commission found the percentages paid by the employer for family coverage health insurance for three out of seven array cities for PPO and two out of seven array cities for HMO insurance plans. While determining whether Douglas County should provided 2/4 party coverage is moot in the instant case, determining the percentage to be paid by the employer and employee is not moot. Therefore, in its Findings and Order issued March 20, 2006, the Commission correctly decided the percentage paid for 2/4 party insurance. See Table 3 in the Findings and Order. The Commission also notes a mistake on Table 3 in the Findings and Order. The incorrect county “Gage” on the bottom of Table 3 should be replaced with the county of “ Douglas .”

3.   City of Omaha Should be Included in the Array

The Petitioner argues that the Commission erred in finding that the Petitioner did not present sufficient evidence to include the City of Omaha in the array. The Petitioner argues that the Commission did not consider the evidence that the City of Omaha and the Douglas County employees work in the same physical facility and often work on the same projects.

In the Commission’s Findings and Order, the Commission found that the weight of evidence rested on the side of excluding the City of Omaha . The Commission did consider all the evidence presented at trial. Therefore, since the Commission can find no mischaracterization of the evidence, our previous findings shall stand as issued by the Commission on March 20, 2006.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent’s request to amend the order of March 20, 2006 is sustained in part and overruled in part and such Order shall be as stated herein.  It is the final order of the Commission that:

1.  Dental and health insurance should also be reduced resulting in a subtraction or offset for the entire year with the percentages as stated in the Findings and Order issued on March 20, 2006.

2.  The incorrect county “Gage” on the bottom of Table 3 should be replaced with the county of “ Douglas .”

3.  All other terms and conditions of employment for the 2004-2005 contract year shall be as previously established by the agreement of the parties and by orders and findings of the Commission.

4.  Adjustments and compensation resulting from this Order shall be paid in a single lump sum payable within thirty (30) days of this Final Order.