17 CIR 43 (2011)

NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

 Entered August 8, 2011

APPEARANCES:

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:           

This action was brought by the Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 37 (“Petitioner” or “Union”) pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 a labor organization as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-801(6) (Reissue 2004). The Petitioner is the duly recognized collective bargaining representative of a bargaining unit consisting of employee classifications of Sergeant, Detective, Dispatcher, Chief Dispatcher, and Police Officer of the City of Fremont (“Respondent” or “City”). The Petitioner seeks the resolution of an industrial dispute over wages and other terms and conditions of employment for the October 1, 2010 to September 30, 2011 contract year.

ARRAY:

The parties have four array cities, which they agree are similar, and should be included in the array. These cities are: Columbus, NE; Grand Island, NE; Kearney, NE; and North Platte, NE. The Petitioner proposes including the additional cities of La Vista, NE; South Sioux City, NE; and Ankeny, IA. The Respondent proposes instead to include the cities of Beatrice, NE; Hastings, NE; Norfolk, NE; and Scottsbluff, NE in the array.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 gives the Commission discretion in its determination of what is comparable to the prevailing wage rate. See Lincoln Fire Fighters Ass’n v. City of Lincoln, 198 Neb. 174, 252 N.W.2d 607 (1977). While the Industrial Relations Act does not define comparable, nor specifically direct the Commission in the manner and process of its determination, the Commission has received some guidance from the Nebraska Supreme Court. In Omaha Ass’n of Firefighters v. City of Omaha, 194 Neb. 436, 440-41, 231 N.W.2d 710, 713-14 (1975), the Supreme Court found that:

“a prevalent [sic] wage rate to be determined by the Court of Industrial Relations must almost invariably be determined after consideration of a combination of factors…. Under Section 48-818, R.R.S. 1943, in selecting cities in reasonably similar labor markets for the purpose of comparison in arriving at comparable and prevalent wage rates the question is whether, as a matter of fact, the cities selected for comparison are sufficiently similar and have enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison appropriate.”

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 in 209 Neb. 397, 309 N.W.2d 65 (1981). Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 the Commission is charged with determining rates of pay and conditions of employment which are comparable to prevalent wage rates paid and conditions of employment maintained under the same or similar working conditions. In accomplishing this, the Commission hears evidence from each of the parties concerning the similarity and appropriateness of including the members of the array proposed by each of them. The Commission then chooses the array cities which are sufficiently the same or similar. This is a determination of fact and made from the evidence on a case-by-case basis. See General Drivers & Helpers Union Local No. 554 v. County of Gage, 14 CIR 170 (2003). An array decision does not control the proper array in future cases. See Lincoln Firefighters Ass’n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 12 CIR 211 (1996).

Furthermore, the Commission is not required to consider every possible array, but seeks one which is sufficiently representative so as to determine whether the wages paid or benefits given are comparable. See Lincoln Co. Sheriff’s Emp. Ass’n v. County of Lincoln, 216 Neb. 274, 343 N.W. 2d 735 (1984). Once the array is chosen, the Commission then establishes prevalent wage rates paid and conditions of employment, determining the overall compensation.

The cities agreed upon by both parties will be included in the array. In numerous past cases, the Commission has expressed its preference for 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). A thorough analysis of each of the array cities proposed by the parties in this case is necessary to obtain a sufficient array.     

La Vista, NE, South Sioux City, NE and Ankeny, IA

The Petitioner requests the inclusion of La Vista, NE; South Sioux City, NE and Ankeny, IA in the Commission’s array. The Petitioner argues these cities share the most similar working conditions to the employees in the City of Fremont. The Respondent argues that the inclusion of La Vista, South Sioux City, and Ankeny in an MSA prohibits their inclusion in an array with the City of Fremont. Additionally, the Respondent argues that the Commission need not go outside the State of Nebraska to find a sufficient array.

As the Nebraska Supreme Court stated in Lincoln Fire Fighters Ass’n. v. City of Lincoln , 198 Neb. 174, 252 N.W.2d 607 (1977), “the burden is on the moving party in a Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818 case to demonstrate that existing wages are not comparable to the prevalent wage rate...” Basically, it is necessary for the party requesting the inclusion of a particular array city to first establish by the evidence what were the prevalent wage rates paid, and conditions of employment maintained, for the same or similar work of workers exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818. In making this statutory comparison, the Court found it necessary to take into consideration not only the wage for time actually worked but also wages for time not worked, including vacations, holidays, and other excused time; all other benefits received including insurance and pensions; and the continuity and stability of employment. See also, Crete Education Ass’n. v. School Dist. of Crete, 193 Neb. 245, 226 N.W.2d 752 (1975). These principles are applicable also in determining whether a party has sustained its burden of proof regarding proposed array cities. See International Ass’n of Firefighters, Local Union No. 647 v. City of Grand Island, 15 CIR 324 (2007).

The Petitioner has failed to convince the Commission that the city of Ankeny, IA should be included in the array. When looking at geographic proximity, there is a preference for staying within Nebraska when choosing comparables if an appropriate array exists within the state. Lincoln Co. Sheriff’s Employees Ass’n v. Co. of Lincoln, 216 Neb. 274, 343 N.W.2d 735 (1984). While each array is determined by the facts presented in that case, the Commission has in the past commented on the strong policies in favor of using an array of comparable Nebraska array members, rather than using array members from outside the State of Nebraska.

In the instant case, we already have four comparable in-state employees and find the inclusion of Ankeny, IA unnecessary, especially in light of the other contested array members within the State of Nebraska. Therefore, the Commission will not include Ankeny, IA in its array.

The Petitioner has also proposed the inclusion of La Vista, NE and South Sioux City, NE for inclusion in the array. The Petitioner argues that La Vista, NE should be included in the array because both La Vista and Fremont are similarly impacted through economic ties, traffic ties, and commuting times (working conditions) to Omaha, NE. The Petitioner also argues that South Sioux City police officers work under similar conditions to Fremont’s police officers, including similar spill over crime from the metro area of Sioux City, IA.  The Respondent alternatively argues that La Vista, NE is not a stand-alone community and it is greatly impacted from the Omaha Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The Respondent also argues that South Sioux City is not comparable to Fremont because the evidence presented lacks support from facts, analysis or statistics. The Respondent argues that the Petitioner’s expert witnesses are not credible and the array comparisons by the Petitioner are based upon ‘junk science”. The Respondent also argues that because both La Vista and South Sioux City are in an MSA and Fremont is not in an MSA, these array cities are not comparable.

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. 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, (1981). Yet, the Commission has not uniformly adopted MSA population as a criterion in selecting or rejecting array members. Indeed, the Commission has, on occasion, rejected the use of MSA as a selection criterion. See Douglas County Health Dept. Employees Ass’n v. County of Douglas, 8 CIR 208 (1986), aff’d, 229 Neb. 301 (1988); Lincoln Police Union v. City of Lincoln, 5 CIR 134 (1981); Lincoln Firefighters Ass’n, Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 3 CIR 130 (1976), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 198 Neb. 174 (1976).

In this case, both La Vista and South Sioux City are located in an MSA. Fremont is not located in an MSA but is located currently in a Combined Statistical Area (“CSA”), which is defined as a measure of ties between adjacent metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas. Fremont is impacted by its proximity to the Omaha area, which makes it more similar to the cities of La Vista and South Sioux City because the evidence proves that MSAs in this case typically have more crime and more dangerous criminal activity. Fremont is impacted by suspects coming from Omaha to Fremont to commit crimes, including increased drug and gang related activity.  This impact of crime is also present in the cities of La Vista and South Sioux City. The Commission finds that there is insufficient evidence to suggest that simply because La Vista and South Sioux City are located in an MSA, that those cities are inappropriate for inclusion in this array.

Both La Vista and South Sioux City are very proximate to Fremont, as well as within the Commission’s established size criteria.  The Commission finds the evidence presented by the Petitioner’s witnesses credible and based upon reliable comparisons. The Petitioner proved that the presence of gang–related activity, a meat packing plant, close proximity to a major metropolitan area, and drug activity all had an impact on the working conditions of the police officers in Fremont. Accordingly, both La Vista and South Sioux City share similar work, skills, and working conditions. Therefore, the Commission finds that La Vista and South Sioux City are comparable and should be included in the Commission’s array.

Respondent’s Proposed Array

            The Respondent argues the Commission should also include the Nebraska cities of Beatrice, Hastings, Norfolk and Scottsbluff. The Petitioner argues that Beatrice, Scottsbluff, Hastings and Norfolk are not comparable array members.

            Hastings, NE and Norfolk, NE

The Respondent argues that both Hastings and Norfolk have similar working conditions as to the city of Fremont. The Petitioner argues that the working conditions in both Hastings and Norfolk are not comparable to Fremont.

Both Hastings and Norfolk meet the Commission’s size and geographical proximity criteria. The Respondent proved that the working conditions are similar in Hastings and Norfolk  as compared to Fremont. Norfolk has large meat packing plants nearby as well as government subsidized housing. Hastings sits along the Interstate 80 corridor which traffics crime across the state. The number of crimes and the types of crimes committed in Norfolk and Hastings are similar to that in Fremont. Therefore, the Commission finds the cities of Norfolk and Hastings are comparable and will be included in the Commission’s array.

            Beatrice, NE

The Petitioner and the Respondent disagree as to the population figures with respect to the city of Beatrice. The Petitioner uses the 2010 census numbers for Beatrice in Exhibit 3, which indicates that Beatrice has a population of 12,459 and Fremont has a population of 26,397. The Respondent argues that the census data for the 2010 census has not been “certified” and chooses instead to use the 2009 estimate, which states that Fremont has a population of 25,007 and Beatrice has a population of 12,564.

 When choosing an array of comparable employers, the Commission applies a well-established size guideline of one-half to twice as large. See, Scotts Bluff County School Dist. No. 79-0064 v. Lake Minatare Educ. Ass’n, 13 CIR 256 (1999); Yutan Educ. Ass’n v, Saunders 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). 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 128; 13 CIR 157 (1998); 12 CIR 309; 12 CIR 248 (1997). 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 Educ. Ass’n, 8 CIR 315 (1986); Richland Teachers Educ. Ass’n v. Colfax County School Dist. No. 0001, 11 CIR 286 (1992).

The Commission finds there are a sufficient number of comparables (eight) in the instant case, and with the most recent 2010 census numbers indicating that Beatrice will fall outside our population guidelines; we find Beatrice is not comparable based upon the objective criteria of size. Therefore, the Commission will not include Beatrice in its array.

Scottsbluff, NE

The Respondent argues that Scottsbluff, NE, should be included in the Commission’s array because it is comparable to Fremont. The Petitioner argues that Scottsbluff is not comparable and not geographically proximate to Fremont.

As stated above, if sufficient comparables exist, employers falling outside the Commission’s objective guidelines of size and proximity are often excluded from arrays. See, Tecumseh Education Ass'n v. School District of Tecumseh , 2 CIR 119-5 (1975). While the Respondent agrees that Scottsbluff lacks proximity, it suggests that proximity is only one factor to consider. Citing City of Omaha v. Omaha Police Union, Local No. 101, 16 CIR 120 (2008). With eight comparables already found sufficient under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-818, the Commission need not go over 400 miles west of Fremont, to include Scottsbluff in the array.  Each wage case is tried upon the facts present in that case. General Drivers and Helpers Union Local No. 554 v. County of Gage, 14 CIR 170 (203). In the instant case, with a sufficient array, the clear lack of proximity between Scottsbluff and Fremont is sufficient to exclude Scottsbluff from the array. The Commission need not include Scottsbluff in its array.  Therefore, the Commission’s array shall consist of the four common array members of the parties: Columbus, NE; Grand Island, NE; Kearney, NE; and North Platte, NE; two array members from the Petitioner’s array of La Vista, NE and South Sioux City, NE; and finally the two array members of the Respondent’s array of Hastings, NE and Norfolk, NE.

WAGES and STEPS:

Step Placement

The Petitioner requests the Commission to order a combination progression where records are available to determine both performance and years of service. The Respondent argues that the proper transition method is to place current employees in the bargaining unit on the next step above their current wage.

The Supreme Court in Douglas Cty. Health Dept. Emp Assn. v. Douglas Cty, 229 Neb. 30l, 427 N.W.2d 28 (l988) specifically held that the “manner in which an individual moves from the minimum to the maximum salary rate of a job classification is a timing difference in the salary schedule, which must be adjusted to reach a comparability determination” and is a condition of employment, which the Commission has statutory authority to establish. See also Plattsmouth Pol. Dept. Collective Bargaining v. Plattsmouth, 205 Neb. 567, 288 N.W.2d 729 (l980). Furthermore, in AFSCME v. City of Grand Island, 13 CIR 1 (1997), the Commission placed employees on the pay-line both by time of service and successful completion of performance evaluations. See also, Professional Firefighters Association of Omaha, Local 385 v. City of Omaha, 16 CIR 408 (Case 1227) (2011).

In the instant case, we find that each employee should be placed on the appropriate new pay plan (Tables 6 –9) at a step for which each such employee has qualified by time in service as of the contract date, October 1, 2010, and the number of performance evaluations each employee has successfully completed to the date of the contract, whichever is the lesser number of steps. This placement on the new step pay plans gives credit to the employees for their time in service, and gives credit to each such employee for previously demonstrated job performance.

FRINGE BENEFITS:

Retirement

The Commission does not have jurisdiction over the pension plan of the employees to order a change in the pension plan, even though the Commission does have jurisdiction to offset favorable and unfavorable comparisons of current to prevalent when reaching its decision establishing wage rates. Douglas Cty. Health Dept. Emp. Ass’n v. Douglas Cty., 229 Neb. 301, 422 N.W.2d 28 (1998). Therefore, the Commission will not change the Retirement Benefit Pension Employer/Employee’s Contribution or Retiree Health Care Coverage.

Sick Leave Bank

            The Petitioner argues that the employees previously donated these hours to the sick leave bank and that such a bank is akin to or similar to the nature of a long–term contract. The Petitioner states that because of this similarity, the sick leave bank should not be subject to the Commission’s normal rules of prevalency, but instead be treated like the Commission currently treats retirement. The Respondent argues that the Commission has jurisdiction over the sick leave bank benefit provided by the City, as the benefit is not established as a pre-existing contractual agreement, and is a matter which is essential to employees’ financial and personal concerns. The Respondent also states that the Commission has previously ordered the change of sick leave policies to match the prevalent practice, citing. Ralston Educ. Ass’n v. School Dist. of Ralston, 6 CIR 416 (1983).

            A sick leave bank, given freely by employees to other bargaining unit employees for events of major illness, is fundamentally different from basic sick leave policies whereby each individual employee “banks” their own hours for their own use. The Commission agrees with the Petitioner that these hours were donated under the nature of previous contractual agreements. The Commission does not have jurisdiction over interpreting long-term contractual rights. See Transport Workers of America v. Transit Auth. of City of Omaha, 205 Neb. 26, 286 N. W. 2d 102 (1979). Therefore, we will not order a prevalency change to the sick leave bank as presented in Exhibit 139.

Benefits Not Considered

The Commission shall continue to determine comparability of health insurance and life insurance by comparing the percent of the premium to be paid by the employer and employee. See also Lincoln Firefighters Ass’n Local 644 v. City of Lincoln, 12 CIR 248, 265 (1997); General Drivers & Helpers Union Local 554 v. County of Gage, et. al., 14 CIR 170 (2003).

The following benefits will not be considered according to the above rule: 

       1)        Health Insurance Dollar Amounts.

        2)       Life Insurance Dollar Amounts.

        3)       Dental Insurance Dollar Amounts.

In addition to the above stated benefits, the Respondent requests the Commission order that the Respondent should stop its current practice of paying for phone calls while off duty to match prevalent practice. The Respondent cites Exhibit 179, which was offered but not admitted into evidence. The Commission finds there is insufficient evidence contained in the record to order the requested change.

Management Prerogatives

           There are certain fringes which we believe are management prerogatives and we will not address the following in this Order:

1)      Workday in Hours.

2)      Workweek in Hours.

3)      Scheduling Procedure

Comparable Fringe Benefits

The following fringe benefits received by the Fremont bargaining unit shall remain unchanged because they are comparable to those received by bargaining unit members in the array:

1)      Pay Administration Police Officer – Step Pay Plan Maintained. See Table 6.

2)      Pay Administration Police Officer – Number of Steps Maintained at 8. See Table 6.

3)      Pay Administration Police Officer – Time Per Step Maintained at 6 or 12 Months. See Table 6.

4)      Pay Administration Police Officer – Combination of Performance and Longevity for Movement Maintained. See Table 6.

5)      Pay Administration Police Officer – Length of Probationary Period Maintained at 12 months. See Table 6.

6)      Pay Administration Police Detective – Step Pay Plan Maintained. See Table 7.

7)      Pay Administration Police Detective – Number of Steps Maintained at 8. See Table 7.

8)      Pay Administration Police Detective – Time Per Step Maintained at 6 or 12 Months. See Table 7.

9)      Pay Administration Police Detective – Combination of Performance and Longevity for Movement Maintained. See Table 7.

10)   Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Step Pay Plan Maintained. See Table 8.

11)   Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Number of Steps Maintained at 8. See Table 8.

12)   Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Combination of Performance and Longevity for Movement Maintained. See Table 8.

13)   Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Length of Probationary Period Maintained at 6 months. See Table 8.

14)  Pay Administration Police Dispatcher/ Chief Dispatcher – Step Pay Plan Maintained. See Table 9.

15)   Pay Administration Police Dispatcher/ Chief Dispatcher – Number of Steps Maintained at 8. See Table 9.

16)   Pay Administration Police Dispatcher/ Chief Dispatcher – Combination of Performance and Longevity for Movement Maintained. See Table 9.

17)   Pay Administration Police Dispatcher/ Chief Dispatcher – Length of Probationary Period Maintained at 12 months. See Table 9.

18)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Accumulation Allowed.  See Table 10.

19)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Granted for Family.  See Table 10.

20)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ 120 Hours Allowed Annually for Family Illness.  See Table 10.

21)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Maintain Not Allowing Conversion of Sick Leave to Cash/Vacation. See Table 11.

22)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Maintain Cash Conversion Upon Resignation at a Rate of 40%, with a Maximum of 480 Hours. See Table 11.

23)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Maintain Not Allowing Cash Conversion Upon Dismissal. See Table 11.

24)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Maintain Cash Conversion Upon Retirement at a Rate of 40%, with a Maximum of 480 Hours. See Table 11.

25)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance ­ Maintain Cash Conversion Upon Death at a Rate of 40%, with a Maximum of 480 Hours. See Table 11.

26)  Vacation Schedule – 15^th Year 160 Hours Maintained. See Table 13.

27)  Paid Vacation Policies- Accumulation Allowed. See Table 14.

28)  Paid Vacation Policies – Maintain 100% Accumulation Conversion Upon Resignation, Dismissal, Retirement, and Death. See Table 14.

29)  Paid Vacation Policies – Maintain Not Allowing Conversion of Vacation to Cash at the End of the Year. See Table 14.

30)  Life Insurance – Coverage Provided, 100% Employer Paid. See Table 16.

31)  Longevity Pay – Not Provided. See Table 17.

32)  Shift Differential Pay – Not Provided. See Table 18.

33)  Specialty Pay – Not Provided for: Hazardous Duty, Bomb Tech, Accident, Proficiency, Firearms Instruction, Defense Instruction and Armorers. See Table 19.

34)  Specialty Pay – Provided for: Field Training. See Table 19.

35)  Educational Assistance – Provided. See Table 20.

36)  Educational Assistance – Incentive Pay Not Provided. See Table 20.

37)  Educational Assistance – Maximum Annual Allowed $1000. See Table 20.

38)  Lead Worker – Out of Class Pay Not Provided. See Table 22.

39)  Overtime – Allow Bank of Compensatory Time. See Table 23.

40)  Overtime – Vacation and Holiday Leave Hours Counted. See Table 24.

41)  Overtime – Time and One-half. See Table 24.

42)  Overtime – Double Time Not Provided. See Table 24.

43)  Overtime – Compensatory Time Provided. See Table 24.

44)  Equipment Provided – Badge, Brass, Night Stick, Handcuffs, Case, Flashlight, Batts,  Shotgun, Belt and Vest. See Table 25.

45)  Disability Plan – Long Term Disability Provided. See Table 26.

46)  Disability Plan – Short Term Disability Not Provided. See Table 26.

47)  Employee Assistance Program – Provided. See Table 27.

48)  Union Dues Check Off – Provided. See Table 28.

49)  Residency Requirement –Yes. See Table 29.

50)  Residency Requirement – 20 Mile Radius. See Table 29.

51)  Dental Insurance – Provided.  See Table 30.

52)  Take Home City Vehicle – Not Provided for Chief Dispatcher, Dispatcher, Sergeant, and Police Officer. See Table 31.

53)  On-Call Pay – Provided. See Table 32.

54)  Take Home Vehicle For K-9 Officer – Provided. See Table 33.

55)  Compensation For K-9 Officer – 2.5 Hours Compensation Per Week. See Table 33.

56)  Court Attendance Pay – Provided. See Table 34.

57)  Court Attendance Pay – Minimum Amount Paid Time Guaranteed. See Table 34.

58)  Court Attendance Pay – 2 Hours Minimum. See Table 34.

59)  Court Attendance Pay – 1.5 Times the Regular Rate. See Table 34.

60)  Call In Pay – Provided. See Table 35.

61)  Call In Pay – Minimum Amount Paid Time Guaranteed. See Table 35.

62)  Call In Pay – 2 Hours Minimum. See Table 35.

63)  Call In Pay – 1.5 Times the Regular Rate. See Table 35.

64)  Holiday and Personal Leave – Hours Counted for Overtime Maintained. See Table 36.

65)  Holiday and Personal Leave – Holiday Pay Rate 2.5 Times Regular Rate, if worked. See Table 36.

66)  Uniform Pay – Provided. See Table 39.

67)  Uniform Pay – Quartermaster System. See Table 39.

Non-Comparable Benefits

The Commission finds the following fringe benefits to be non-comparable to the array cities, and orders the following adjustments:

1)      Pay Administration Police Officer – Increase Progression from 6 years to 7 years minimum to maximum. See Table 6.

2)      Pay Administration Police Detective – Increase Progression from 6 years to 7 years minimum to maximum. See Table 7.

3)      Pay Administration Police Detective – Increase Probationary Period from 6 months to 12 months. See Table 7.

4)      Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Increase Time Per Step from 6 or 12 months to 12 months. See Table 8.

5)      Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Increase Progression from 6 years to 7 years minimum to maximum. See Table 8.

6)      Pay Administration Police Sergeant – Promotion Percentage Increase now 3%. See Table 8.

7)      Pay Administration Police Dispatcher / Chief Dispatcher – Increase Time Per Step from 6 or 12 months to 12 months. See Table 9.

8)      Pay Administration Police Dispatcher/ Chief Dispatcher – Increase Progression from 6 years to 7 years minimum to maximum. See Table 9.

9)      Annual Sick Leave Allowance – Hours Allowed Annually Increased from 96 Hours to 101 Hours.  See Table 10.

10)  Annual Sick Leave Allowance – Maximum Accumulation Allowed Decreased from 1200 Hours to 1058 Hours, only for the 2010-2011 contract year.  See Table 10.

11)   Annual Sick Leave Allowance – Family Defined as now Spouse, Child, Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Grandchild, Mother-in-Law and Father-in Law. Family Defined will no longer include Stepchild.  See Table 10.

12)  Funeral Leave – Change Hours allowed for Immediate Family from 24 Hours or 30 Hours to just 24 Hours. See Table 12.

13)  Funeral Leave – Discontinue allowing Hours for Other Relatives. See Table 12.

14)  Funeral Leave – Change Definitions of Immediate Family to Spouse, Child, Mother, Father, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Step–child, Brother, Sister, Sister-in-law, Brother-in-Law, Grandparent, Grandparent-in-Law, and Grandchild. See Table 12.

15)  Vacation Schedule Hours Decrease After- Year 1: from 80 hours to 75 hours; Year 5: from 120 hours to 112 hours; and Year 6: from 120 hours to 117 hours. See Table 13.

16)  Vacation Schedule Hours Increase After – Year 2: from 80 hours to 81 hours; Year 10: from 120 hours to 126 hours; Year 20: from 160 hours to 165 hours; and Year 25: from 160 hours to 165 hours. See Table 13.

17)  Paid Vacation Policies – Accumulation Conversion Maximum Number of Hours Carried Over Decreased from 240 Hours to 157 Hours. See Table 14.

18)  Health Insurance – Percentage Employer – Family Coverage, Decrease from 86% to 83.5%. See Table 15.

19)  Health Insurance – Percentage Employer – 2/4 Party Coverage, Decrease from 86% to 84%. See Table 15.

20)  Health Insurance – Percentage Employer – Single Coverage, Decrease from 95% to 92%.  See Table 15.

21)  Health Insurance – Percentage Employee – Family Coverage, Increase from 14% to 16.5%. See Table 15.

22)  Health Insurance – Percentage Employee – 2/4 Party Coverage, Increase from 14% to 16%. See Table 15.

23)  Health Insurance – Percentage Employee – Single Coverage, Increase from 5% to 8%.  See Table 15.

24)  Specialty Pay – No Longer Provided for Swat and K-9. See Table 19.

25)  Educational Assistance – For Tuition Increased from 95% to 99%. See Table 20.

26)  Educational Assistance – For Books Increased from 95% to 98%. See Table 20.

27)  Educational Assistance – For Lab Fees Increased from 95% to 98%. See Table 20.

28)  Work Out–of–Class Pay – No Longer Provided. See Table 21.

29)  Overtime – Decrease Number of Hours Banked for Compensatory Time from 240 Hours to 128 Hours. See Table 23.

30)  Overtime- Number of Hours for Overtime from 40 to 80 bi-weekly. See Table 24.

31)  Equipment Now Provide – Whistle, Weapon, and Ammo Clips. See Table 25.

32)  Dental Insurance – Not Part of Health Insurance. See Table 30.

33)  Dental Insurance – Individual Coverage Percentage Paid by Employer Increased from 95% to 98%. See Table 30.

34)  Dental Insurance – Family Coverage Percentage Paid by Employer Decreased from 86% to 55%. See Table 30.

35)  Take Home City Vehicle – Police Detective No Longer Provided. See Table 31.

36)  On–Call Pay – No Longer Guaranteed Minimum Amount of Paid Time. See Table 32.

37)  Holiday and Personal Leave – Holiday reduced from 11 to 10 per year. See Table 36.

38)  Holiday and Personal Leave – Hours of Personal Leave, increased from zero to 13. See Table   36.

39)  Exercise on Duty – No Longer Provided. See Table 37

40)  Injured–On–Duty Leave – No Longer Provided. See Table 38.

41)   Uniform Pay – Additional Yearly Allowance Decrease from $780 Per Year to $497 Per Year. See Table 39.

42)    Uniform Pay – Plain Clothes Allowance – Increased from $480 Per Year to $640. See Table 39.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that for the October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011 contract year, the following shall be effective as of October 1, 2010:

1)  The Petitioner’s wages (See Tables 1-5) for the October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011 contract year shall be as follows:

JOB CLASSIFICATION                                      MIN                           MAX

Police Officer                                                         $ 17.59                        $ 24.36

Detective                                                                $ 17.92                        $ 24.86

Sergeant                                                                 $ 22.13                        $ 28.87

Dispatcher                                                              $ 13.52                        $ 18.69

Chief Dispatcher                                                     $16.14                         $ 22.11

2)  The fringe benefit and wage offset, as found herein, shall be calculated on an individual employee basis. The Respondent shall determine the net lump sum overpayment or underpayment for the contract year for each employee. Any net lump sum underpayment for any employee shall be paid by the Respondent to each such employee; however, any employee reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of compensation owed to the employee from the Respondent.

3)  The Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Police Officer. The Respondent shall also maintain 8 steps with 6 or 12 months per step. The Respondent shall increase the number of years from 6 years to 7 years for progression from the minimum step to the maximum step and the Respondent shall maintain a 12–month probationary period. The Respondent shall continue to move Police Officers forward through a combination of performance and longevity. See Table 6.

4)  The Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Police Detective. The Respondent shall also maintain 8 steps with 6 or 12 months per step. The Respondent shall increase the number of years from 6 years to 7 years for progression from the minimum step to the maximum step and the Respondent shall increase its probationary period for Police Detectives from 6 months to 12 months. The Respondent shall continue to move Police Detectives forward through a combination of performance and longevity. See Table 7.

5) The Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Police Sergeant. The Respondent shall also maintain 8 steps but increase the time per step from 6 or 12 months per step, to only 12 months per step. The Respondent shall increase the number of years from 6 years to 7 years for progression from the minimum step to the maximum step and the Respondent shall maintain a 6– month probationary period. The Respondent shall continue to move Police Officers forward through a combination of performance and longevity. The Respondent shall now give the Sergeants a Promotional percentage increase of 3%. See Table 8.

6) The Respondent shall maintain a step pay plan for Police Dispatcher/ Chief Dispatcher. The Respondent shall also maintain 8 steps but increase the time per step from 6 or 12 months per step, to only 12 months per step. The Respondent shall increase the number of years from 6 years to 7 years for progression from the minimum step to the maximum step and the Respondent shall maintain a 12–month probationary period. The Respondent shall continue to move Police Dispatchers/ Chief Dispatchers forward through a combination of performance and longevity. See Table 9.

7) The Respondent shall increase the hours it allows annually for sick leave from 96 hours to 101 hours. The Respondent shall continue to allow sick leave accumulation but shall decrease its maximum accumulation allowed from 1200 hours to 1058 hours for the 2010-2011 contract year. The Respondent shall continue to grant leave for family illness at the rate of 120 hours allowed per year but shall change its definition of family from Spouse, Child, Mother, Father, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-law and Stepchild to Spouse, Child, Mother, Father, Brother, Sister, Grandchild, Mother-in-Law, and Father-in-law. See Table 10.

8)  The Respondent shall maintain not allowing conversion of sick leave to cash or vacation. The Respondent shall continue to allow sick leave to be converted to cash upon resignation at the rate of 40% for a maximum of 480 hours. The Respondent shall continue to allow sick leave to be converted to cash upon retirement at the rate of 40% for a maximum of 480 hours. The Respondent shall continue to allow sick leave to be converted to cash upon death at the rate of 40% for a maximum of 480 hours. The Respondent shall continue to not allow sick leave to be converted to cash upon dismissal. See Table 11.

9) The Respondent shall decrease its hours allowed for immediate family from 24 or 30 to just 24 hours. The Respondent shall not allow funeral leave for other relatives. The Respondent shall change its definition of immediate family to Spouse, Child, Mother, Father, Step-Mother, Step-Father, Mother-in-Law, Father-in-Law, Stepchild, Brother, Sister, Sister-in-Law, Brother-in-Law, Grandparent, Grandparent-in-Law, and Grandchild.  See Table 12.

10) The Respondent shall decrease the hours it allows for vacation after year 1 from 80 hours to 75 hours; after year 5 from 120 hours to 112 hours; after year 6 from 120 hours to 117 hours. The Respondent shall increase the hours it allows for vacation after year 2 from 80 hours to 81 hours; after year 10 from 120 hours to 126 hours; after year 20 from 160 hours to 165 hours; and after year 25 from 160 hours to 165 hours. The Respondent shall maintain the number of hours it provides after year 15 at 160 hours. See Table 13.

11) The Respondent shall continue to allow accumulation for vacation. The Respondent shall decrease the maximum number of hours accumulated from 240 hours to 157 hours. The Respondent will continue to convert vacation to cash at the rate of 100% for resignation, dismissal, retirement, and death, but not convert vacation to cash at the end of the year. See Table 14.

12) The Respondent shall decrease the percentage it pays for health insurance from 86% to 83.5 % for Family Coverage. The Respondent shall decrease the percentage it pays for health insurance from 86% to 84% for 2/4 Party Coverage. The Respondent shall decrease the percentage of Health Insurance it pays for from 95% to 92% for Single Coverage. The Employees shall increase the percentages they pay for Family Coverage from 14% to 16.5%; for 2/4 Party Coverage from 14% to 16%; and for Single Coverage from 5% to 8%. See Table 15.

13) The Respondent shall continue to provide Life Insurance, paying 100%. See Table 16.

14) The Respondent shall continue not to provide Longevity Pay. See Table 17.

15) The Respondent shall continue not to provide Shift Differential Pay. See Table 18.

16) The Respondent shall continue to provide Specialty Pay for Field Training but discontinue providing Specialty Pay for Swat and K-9. The Respondent shall continue to not provide Specialty Pay for Hazardous Duty, Bomb Tech, Accident, Proficiency, Firearms Instruction, Defense Instruction, and Armorers. See Table 19.

17) The Respondent shall continue to provide educational assistance but shall increase its rate reimbursed for tuition from 95% to 99%, for books from 95% to 98% and for lab fees from 95% to 98%. The Respondent shall continue to not provide incentive pay and shall continue to cap the maximum reimbursement allowed at $1000. See Table 20.

18) The Respondent shall no longer provide working–out–of–class pay. See Table 21.

19) The Respondent shall continue to not provide working–out–of–class pay for the lead worker. See Table 22.

20) The Respondent shall continue to allow employees to bank compensatory time but the Respondent shall decrease the number of hours allowed to be banked from 240 hours to 128 hours. See Table 23.

21) The Respondent shall continue to count vacation and holiday hours in overtime at time and one-half, without double time, and allowing compensatory time. The Respondent shall change the number of hours for overtime from 40 to 80 hours bi-weekly. See Table 24.

22) The Respondent shall continue to provide a badge, brass, night stick, handcuffs, case, flashlight, batts, shotgun, belt and vest. The Respondent shall now provide also a whistle, weapon and ammo clips. See Table 25.

23) The Respondent shall continue to provide long term disability and continue to not provide short term disability. See Table 26.

24) The Respondent shall continue to provide an employee assistance program. See Table 27.

25) The Respondent shall continue to provide union dues check off. See Table 28.

26) The Respondent shall continue to provide a residency requirement of a 20–mile

radius. See Table 29.

27) The Respondent shall continue to provide dental insurance, but not provide the dental insurance as part of health insurance. The Respondent shall increase the amount it pays for individual coverage from 95% to 98% and decrease the amount it pays for family coverage from 86% to 55%. See Table 30.

28) The Respondent shall continue to not provide take home city vehicles for the positions of Chief Dispatcher, Dispatcher, Sergeant, and Police Officer and the Respondent shall discontinue allowing take home city vehicles for the position of Police Detective. See Table 31.

29) The Respondent shall continue to provide on-call pay, but shall discontinue its practice of providing a guaranteed minimum amount of paid time. See Table 32.

30) The Respondent shall continue to provide a take home vehicle for K-9 Officers. The Respondent shall also compensate K-9 Officers at a rate of 2.5 Hours compensation per week. See Table 33.

31) The Respondent shall continue to provide court attendance pay at a minimum guaranteed of 2 hours at 1.5 times the regular rate. See Table 34.

32) The Respondent shall continue to provide call in pay at a minimum guaranteed of 2 hours at 1.5 times the regular rate. See Table 35.

33) The Respondent shall decrease the number of holidays it provides each year from 11 days to 10 days. The Respondent shall continue to count holiday and personal leave for the calculation of overtime. The Respondent shall continue paying holiday pay at 2.5 times the base rate, if worked. The Respondent shall now have 13 hours of personal leave. See Table 36.

34) The Respondent shall no longer provide time for the officers to exercise on duty. See Table 37.

35) The Respondent shall no longer provide injured on duty leave. See Table 38.

36) The Respondent shall continue to provide uniform pay, providing uniforms under a quartermaster system. The Respondent shall decrease the amount it pays per year from $780 to $497, after the first year. The Respondent shall increase the amount it pays for plain clothes allowance from $480 per year to $640 per year. See Table 39.

37) Except for relief granted in this Order, the Respondent’s counterclaim is denied. Any adjustments in compensation resulting from the final order rendered in this matter will be made by lump sum payment within 90 days of the Final Order.

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

To obtain a copy of  the Tables, please contact the Commission of Industrial Relations at (402) 471-2934 or by e-mail at industrial.relations@nebraska.gov.