|THE TRANSIT AUTHORITY OF THE|||||CASE NO. 200|
|CITY OF OMAHA, d/b/a METRO||||
|v.|||||OPINION AND ORDER|
|TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION||||
|OF AMERICA, LOCAL 223; et al.,||||
For Plaintiff City: Thomas J. Young
For Defendant Local 223: O'Connor & O'Connor
For Defendant International: None
For Defendant Local 554: David D. Weinberg
Before: Judges Wall, Kratz & DeBacker
This case is a continuation of Transit Authority v. Transport workers , 3 CIR Adv. 144, 3 CIR 176-1. The basic dispute is unchanged from our prior Opinion, and we will not restate the facts there recited.
Plaintiff now claims service on the defendant International, but we find service to be incomplete at the present time, there being no showing that the person served is a "principal officer" as required by Section 48-813, R.R.S. 1943. In view of the result, we do not pursue this matter further.
The union representing the Council Bluffs employees is now before us, having a new contract calling for renegotiation in the event Local 223 get broader protective clauses in any "13c" Agreement.
The principal development since our former Opinion has been an order from the Secretary of Labor to bargain on the protective agreement, and agree or report failure to agree to the Secretary, who will then determine the question. The plaintiff has chosen to come again to this Court, seeking an evidentiary hearing at which it will prove "intent' of the parties in signing this collective bargaining agreements, and for a "clearer" statement of what we said in Case No. 176. We find nothing which was not presented and decided before, nor anything that can be said more clearly than we said it before. Parol evidence is not generally admissible to alter or vary the terms of a written contract. Cornhusker Development & Inv. group. Inc. v. Knecht , 180 Neb. 873, 146 N.W. 2d 567 (1966).
There being no justiciable issue, the Petition is dismissed with prejudice.
Entered November 30, 1976.