| OMAHA CITY EMPLOYEES, | | | CASE NO. 239 |
| LOCAL UNION NO. 251 | | | |
| | | ||
| Plaintiff, | | | |
| | | ||
| V. | | | |
| | | ||
| CITY OF OMAHA, NEBRASKA, | | | DISSENT |
| a Municipal Corporation, | | | |
| | | ||
| Defendant. | | |
McGINLEY, J.J.:
This case has been delayed and beset with procedural snags since its hearing before Judge Green on January 23, 1978; and I recognize the urgency of reaching a decision now for the guidance of the parties involved. However, I feel compelled to enter a Non-Concurrence in order to call attention to the inadequacy of the evidence presented by the Plaintiff Union and the Defendant City, which, in my opinion, does not meet the standard of completeness that is called for in Section 48#-818.
We of the panel have consulted over the difficulties presented by the spotty or non-existent comparisons of the employee classifications of the City. Judge Kratz' statement makes clear and charitable reference to these omissions and inadequacies, so that I need not be more specific for my own purpose. Suffice it to say that the Court was left with the responsibility of arriving at a pay formula that is, at best, ragged and uneven when applied to the total roster of employees.
I have great respect for the senior experience of
my colleagues of the panel in reaching this accommodation decision. It is a brave effort to bring some order out of a poorly presented and chaotic body of evidence. It is an Order, however, that will require administrative wizardry to implement fairly, and likely will require further negotiation between the parties to reach a workable result.
If the matter does go back to the bargaining table, formally or informally, it seems to me that the best results can be obtained there. The Court cannot possibily arrive at a better result than the local parties can earnestly achieve themselves, when the material evidence is as incomplete and inexact as we find here. I would have preferred a follow-up hearing in an effort to establish a more solid body of facts to make sharper comparisons, rather than to enter a Dismissal. Again, that would have caused further delay, and the parties are now left with the Order which can serve as a suggestion for further negotiations toward a home-based resolution of the impasse in this case.
_______________________________