3 CIR 597 (1979). Order vacated in part, and in part reversed. 205 Neb. 567, 288 N.W.2d 729 (1980).


Plaintiff, |
Defendant. |

Filed January 16, 1979.


For the Plaintiff: William Lindsay and Michael Amdor

For the Defendant: Herbert Elworth


These cases bring before us the disputes between petitioner and respondent as to wages for the period August 1, 1976 to July 31, 1977 and the period August 1, 1977 to July 31, 1978; certain alleged illegal acts and unfair labor practices; and what is now a moot question, the effect of respondent's budget or tax base as a determination under §48-818, R.R.S. 1943. We find that we have jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter of this action.

The question of budgets and tax base effects on 818 determinations has been laid to rest by the Supreme Court and requires no discussion by us. Nebraska City Ed. Assn. v. School District , 201 Neb. 303, 267 N. W. 2d 530 (1978).

There are two illegal management acts or unfair labor practices raised by the evidence. The first is respondent's failure to promote Sergeant James R. Cernich to Lieutenant, even though he was selected as such. The reason advanced by respondent is solely the pendency of these actions. Sergeant Cernich was head of the petitioner's bargaining team prior to the resignation of the former Lieutenant, at which time Cernich assumed all the duties of Lieutenant and resigned as a member of the bargaining team. The failure to promote is clearly the result of anti-union animosity and punishes members of petitioner for seeking redress of grievances before this tribunal. It is plainly illegal and an unfair labor practice. §48-811, R.R.S. 1943. Fortunately, it is simply corrected. Respondent is directed to correct Sergeant Cernich's records to show his promotion to Lieutenant effective September 1, 1976. Cernich is entitled to the pay, allowances, perquisites and seniority of that position from that date.

The second illegal act or unfair labor practice is indirectly complained of by petitioner, and is apparent on the record. Respondent removed the secretary/part-time dispatcher from the unit, also because of the pendency of this action. This display of anti-union animus is also illegal and an unfair labor practice. §48-811, R.R.S. 1943. Respondent is directed to restore the secretary/part-time dispatcher to the unit forthwith, and to compensate her comparably to the other wage orders herein entered.

We next turn to the matter of wage determination. in order to do this, we first determine the array. Since all police officers in Nebraska must take and pass the course at the Nebraska Police Academy, law enforcement officers in Nebraska must be considered theoretically fungible at the date of graduation from the Academy, as are teachers, for wage comparison purposes. Since, thus, all beginning police officers in Nebraska are theoretically comparable to all others, we turn to the choice of a balanced array to adjust for all those variables that may affect the market price of police labor in a given locale, but which may not be capable of ascertainment with the necessary exactitude and a reasonable expenditure of time and money.

Petitioner tenders 22 first class cities in the State of Nebraska, ranging from Wayne, with a population of 4,356 and a police force of 10, to Fremont, with a population of 23,953 and a police force of 28. Plattsmouth has a population of 6,844 and a police force of 12. Respondent seeks to add Auburn, Nebraska, population 3,650; Glenwood, Iowa, population 4,195; and Shenandoah, Iowa, population 5,968. While Glenwood being "just across the river" is certainly within the Plattsmouth labor market area, and Shenandoah may be, we find that respondent has failed to show that Iowa has a similar training requirement to that in Nebraska - that, in fact, Iowa officers may be paid extra for attending the State Academy. Since we already have a sufficient sampling within Nebraska, we deem it unnecessary to pursue the matter further under §48-817, R.R.S. 1943, and reject the tendered Iowa cities.

We feel the best balanced array is constituted of the four cities immediately above and below Plattsmouth in population and within a reasonable distance of Plattsmouth, to assure that the same basic economic factors are operating in the array. This gives us the following array: Beatrice, LaVista, Nebraska City, York, Papillion, Blair, Ralston and Fairbury. The figures for the array are shown at Appendix A-1 thru A-4. It is apparent from the array that Plattsmouth beginning salaries, except for dispatchers, are at or above the prevalent and that petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proof as to all beginning or minimum salaries, except dispatchers. Accordingly, we make no change in beginning salaries, except for dispatchers.

We set the new salaries for the years concerned at the mid-point between the increase indicated by the mean and the median, bearing in mind the statistical problems in choosing either as the actual midpoint. The schedules as herein ordered changed are shown at Appendix B. The array shows the prevailing practice to be the establishment of steps in the salary schedule,and we have, therefore, set up three steps. The first step applies to beginners, the second to those with one year's seniority, and the maximum to those with more than two year's service. For those members of petitioner who left respondent's employ during the pendency of these actions, they shall be entitled to the increased benefits up to the date of their departure from employment.

We next turn to an examination of fringe benefits. Respondent admits that it is willing to have a 12% or 6 and 6 pension plan for officers. We order the amendment of the pension plan in accord with that judicial admission. No amendment of the dispatcher pension plan has been requested, and none is granted.

Petitioner has failed to carry its burden of proof on longevity pay, overtime compensation, holidays, holiday compensation, uniform allowance, cleaning allowance, life insurance payment, employee health insurance, sick leave allowance and accumulation of sick leave, and we order no change in those benefits.

On vacation, we find the prevalent to be 10 working days after one year, 12 after five, 15 after ten and 20 after fifteen. on family health insurance, we find the prevalent to be that the employer pays 78% of family coverage. On the amount of life insurance, we find that $7,375.00 is prevalent as the amount of coverage per employee.

ORDERED, that the disputes between the parties are settled as herein outlined. In accordance with statute, the judgment accrues interest from the date of entry.