19
CIR 93 (2014)
NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
FRATERNAL
ORDER OF POLICE LODGE 74,
Petitioner, v. CITY
OF CRETE, A Political Subdivision of the State of Nebraska,
Respondent. . |
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) |
|
Case
No. 1338 FINAL
ORDER |
November 13, 2014
APPEARANCES:
For
Petitioner Gary
L. Young
Keating,
O’Gara, Nedved & Peter, PC, LLO
530
South 13th Street, Ste 100
Lincoln,
NE 68508
For
Respondent Jerry
L. Pigsley
Harding
& Shultz, P.C., L.L.O.
121
South 13th Street
P.O.
Box 82028
Lincoln,
NE 68501
Before Commissioners Spray, Lindahl
and Pillen
SPRAY, Commissioner
NATURE OF THE CASE
On September 25, 2014, Petitioner,
Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 74 (“Petitioner” or “Union”), filed a request
with the Commission seeking a Post-Trial Conference pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-816(7)(d)
(Cum.Supp. 2012). A hearing was held on October 3, 2014. Petitioner was
represented by its attorney, Gary L. Young, and Respondent, City of Crete
(“City” or “Respondent), was represented by its attorneys, Jerry L. Pigsley and
Kelley M. Ekeler (together with Petitioner, the “Parties”).
Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-816(7)(d), a post-trial conference may
be requested in order for the Commission to hear from the Parties on portions
of the decision and order which were not based upon or which mischaracterized
the evidence in the record and allow the Commission to correct any such errors.
Petitioner raised two issues during the Post-Trial Conference for the Commission
to clarify in its Findings and Order dated September 3, 2014: Court Attendance
Pay, and Pay Administration. The Parties waived the 10 day requirement for the
entry of the Commission’s Final Order in order to allow Respondent additional
time to respond to Petitioner’s issues. Respondent filed its response on
October 10, 2014. The case is deemed submitted. The Commission shall consider
each issue below.
Court Attendance Pay
In its first issue, Petitioner
argued that the Commission’s Order did not correctly reflect the Parties’
agreement on the treatment of court attendance pay for employees. On page 13 of
the Findings and Order, the Commission ordered no change in the City’s current
practice regarding court attendance pay. Crete’s current practice is to pay
employees a minimum amount of 2 hours pay at the regular rate per hour. Petitioner
directed the Commission’s attention to the joint stipulation for trial filed by
the parties on December 5, 2013, which illustrated that the parties agreed that
Crete should instead provide employees a minimum amount of 2 hours pay at a
rate of 1.5 times the base rate per hour. Therefore, the Commission shall
correct its order to eliminate Court Attendance Pay as a comparable fringe
benefit and instead recognize it as a non-comparable fringe benefit per
agreement of the Parties. Item 13 on page 17 of the Order shall be amended to
read: “Respondent shall continue to provide a minimum of 2 hours court
attendance pay, and shall increase the rate from 1.0 to 1.5 times the base rate
per hour.” As Table 25 reflects the correct numerical figures, the table shall
not be changed.
Pay Administration
In its second issue, Petitioner
asked for additional clarification of the Commission’s Order regarding an
employee’s placement upon the pay plan. On page 10 of the Order, the Commission
ordered that bargaining unit employees should be placed on the pay plan based
upon an employee’s years of service at a step for which such employee has
qualified by time in service of the contract date, October 1, 2012. Petitioner
states that this is correct, but requests that the Commission clarify whether
it meant to include or exclude testimony from Petitioner’s expert, Paul Essman,
regarding pay plan placement. Petitioner refers to Mr. Essman’s statements that
an employee should be placed on the pay line not only for the years of service,
but also be given credit for the actual step at which the employee was placed
as of the contract date. Petitioner argues that this clarification takes into
account situations where an employee may have been at a higher step in October
2012 than what would be expected based upon years of service because that
particular employee had been hired at a higher step and moved along
accordingly.
Respondent contends that Petitioner’s
request is not the proper subject matter for a Post-Trial Conference as the
argument does not focus on the statutory reasons for requesting a Post-Trial Conference
under § 48-816(7)(d)- to correct an error or a mischaracterization of the
evidence. Additionally, Respondent argues that the Commission’s Order is clear
and no further clarification is necessary. We agree with Respondent in that
Petitioner’s request for additional clarification is beyond the scope of the
limited purpose for a Post-Trial Conference. We therefore decline to make any
changes to the Findings and Order regarding pay administration in Crete.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
Petitioner’s request to amend the Findings and Order of September 3, 2014 is
sustained in part and declined in part and such Order shall be as stated
herein. It is the Final Order of the Commission that:
1. Page
13 shall be amended to eliminate Court Attendance Pay as a comparable fringe
benefit, and Court Attendance Pay shall be listed as a non-comparable fringe benefit
which is listed beginning at page 14 of the Order.
2. Page
17 of the Order, item 13 shall be amended to read: “Respondent shall continue
to provide a minimum of 2 hours court attendance pay, and shall increase the
rate from 1.0 to 1.5 times the base rate per hour.”
3. There
shall be no change to the Commission’s Findings and Order regarding Pay
Administration.
All
panel Commissioners join in the entry of this Final Order.