3 CIR 632 (1979)

IN THE COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS OF THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Filed April 27, 1979.

Appearances:

For the Plaintiff: J. Murry Shaeffer

For the Defendant: Arthur T. Carter

Before: Judges Kratz, McGinley, and Gradwohl.

GRADWOHL, J.:

This matter came on for trial on the Petition filed October 10, 1978, and Answer filed October 30, 1978, for a determination of wages and other conditions of employment pursuant to Section 48-818. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

1. Statute.

"The findings and order or orders may establish or alter the scale of wages, hours of labor, or conditions of employment, or any one or more of the same. In making such findings and order or orders, the Court of Industrial Relations shall establish rates of pay and conditions of employment which are comparable to 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. In establishing wage rates the court shall take into consideration the overall compensation presently received by the employees, having regard not only to wages for time actually worked but also to wages for time not worked, including vacations, holidays, and other excused time, and all benefits received, including insurance and pensions, and the continuity and stability of employment enjoyed by the employees. Any order or orders entered may be modified on the court's own motion or on application by any of the parties affected, but only upon a showing of a change in the conditions from those prevailing at the time the original order was entered."

2. Employees; Present Wages; Present Classifications.

Plaintiff files this suit on behalf of 28 of the 30 police officers of the Scottsbluff Police Department. The officers are presently paid on two range schedules for Patrol Officer and Police Lieutenant. The present pay and classifications are shown on Exhibit D-lB.

3. Proposed Classifications.

(a) Detective.

Both parties have presented a new classification for Detective (or Detective/Investigator). Officers with some experience are assigned to work as a Detective for a one year period, after which they return to the duties of Patrol Officer. The new classification agreed to by the parties is appropriate. It is applicable to the period an officer is regularly assigned to serve as a Detective.

(b) Senior Investigator.

Plaintiff seeks a separate classification for Senior Investigator. The position was also referred to as "Police Officer II" and "Lead Officer." The function of Senior Investigator is set forth in a Memorandum issued in March 1977 (Exhibit P-18) as follows:

"The designation of 'Senior Investigator' will be given to certain senior patrolmen of this department. This is not a rank, does not carry with it a pay increase, and is not recognized by the Scottsbluff Civil Service Commission. The incumbent will serve in this capacity at the pleasure of the Chief of Police as with the present 'Investigator' designee.

"The incumbent will be recognized by two chevrons to be worn on his uniform sleeves, similar to the three chevrons worn by the Lieutenants of this department. This designation is in recognition of a sustained high level of performance, training, and investigative experience.

"The incumbent of this designation will have certain responsibilities and privileges as follows:

1.May attend all staff officer's meetings;

2.Will be in charge of crime scenes and other incidents in the absence of a Lieutenant or higher rank;

3.Will be the only patrol officer who may be periodically assigned as 'Acting Shift Commander' in the absence of a Lieutenant;

"This designation may be withdrawn at any time, either from any individual or the entire group, at the discretion of the Chief of Police."

These officers presently receive the same pay as Patrol Officers. They do perform additional duties pertaining to supervision, planning, and training beyond the duties of regular patrol officers. The question is whether this should be considered a separate classification or simply a lead person working in the same classification but at a higher step by virtue of additional training and experience. Four or five of the six other police departments in the comparative array below do not have this separate classification. Plaintiff's Exhibit P-3 includes Columbus as employing this classification, but Defendant's testimony was that the Columbus Sergeant actually performs a greater command function. From the evidence, we determine that this proceeding should not adopt a new classification of Senior Investigator.

Defendant sought at trial to include separate classifications for Juvenile Officer, Detective Supervisor, and Technical Services Supervisor. Each of these classifications would contain one officer. The proposed Juvenile Officer is presently a Patrol Officer. The proposed Detective Supervisor is presently a Lieutenant. The proposed Technical Services Supervisor is also presently a Lieutenant.

Defendant did not raise this issue during the Pretrial Conferences. See Paragraph 5 of Report of Pretrial Conference entered March 20, 1979. Like the Senior Investigator, the question is whether these should be considered as separate classifications or simply persons working in the same classifications but with somewhat different duties. Salaries for Juvenile Officer in five of the six comparable police departments is contained in Exhibits D-6 and D-7, but the evidence did not establish whether or not these were completely independent classifications. information as to Detective Supervisor (Exhibits D-10 and D-11) and Technical Services Supervisor (Exhibits D-12 and D-13) was presented only for Kearney and Hastings in the comparative array, and the evidence did not establish whether or not these were completely independent classifications. From the evidence, we determine that this proceeding should not adopt new classifications of Juvenile officer, Detective Supervisor, and Technical Services Supervisor.

4. Comparables.

Section 48-818 mandates that wages and conditions of employment ordered by the Court be comparable to those "maintained for the same or similar work of workers exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions." The parties stipulated that "Employees of the cities of Alliance, McCook, Columbus, Norfolk, Kearney, and Hastings employed as police officers, all perform the same or similar work under the same or similar working conditions as the employees under the corresponding job titled, for purposes of this proceeding" (Exhibit S-1, Second Stipulation). The Plaintiff additionally relied upon Bellevue, Beatrice, Fremont, LaVista, and South Sioux City. The Defendant additionally relied upon Gering, North Platte, and York. These are 15 of Nebraska's sixteen largest first class cities. Grand Island, the largest first class city, was omitted by both parties because it is more than twice as large as Scottsbluff.

The population (Exhibits P-1 and D-15), police force size (Exhibits P-2 and D-15), and nautical miles distance from Scottsbluff (Exhibit S-1, Third Stipulation) are approximately as follows:

NOTE: Table deleted.

Defendant objected to Plaintiff's proposed additions for several reasons, primarily that Bellevue, LaVista, and South Sioux City are part of metropolitan areas both as to economic influences and working conditions; that LaVista and South Sioux City have fewer than half as many police officers; and that all five cities are more than 300 air miles from Scottsbluff and too geographically remote in this instance. Plaintiff objected to Defendant's proposed additions for several reasons, primarily that North Platte is presently involved in litigation in this Court to determine its police department wages and conditions of employment (Case No. 287; hearing held as of this trial date, but no decision issued); and Gering and York are substantially smaller police units involving different working conditions. Although Gering is part of the same labor area as Scottsbluff, the organization and operation, as well as the size, of its police department is different.

An array of Alliance, Columbus, Hastings, Kearney, McCook and Norfolk is a suitable array for the determinations in this case pursuant to the criteria of Section 48-818. Neither party has sustained the burden of proof that other police departments be included in the array.

5. Wage Comparisons.

(a) Police Officer.

The evidence showed the following comparisons for the wage of police officers (Exhibits P-2, D-2 and D-3).

NOTE: Table deleted

(b) Detective/Investigator.

The evidence showed the following comparisons for the wage of Detective/Investigator (Exhibits P-4, D-4 and D-5):

NOTE : Table deleted

The evidence showed the following comparisons for the wage of Lieutenant/Shift Commander (Exhibits P-5, D-8 and D-9):

NOTE: Table deleted

6. Comparisons of Other Conditions of employment.

The comparison of other conditions of employment for Scottsbluff police officers should be made with respect to the conditions of employment for the police departments in Alliance, Columbus, Hastings, Kearney, McCook, and Norfolk. The individual conditions compared in the evidence are as follows:

(a) Life Insurance Premium; Health Insurance Premium; Sick Leave; Sick Leave Conversion.

NOTE: Table deleted

(b) Overtime; Court Time; Call Out Time.

NOTE: Table deleted

(d) Holidays; Holiday Pay; Shift Differential; Uniform Allowance.

NOTE: Table deleted

(e) Longevity Pay.

NOTE: Table deleted

7. Determination as to "Overall Compensation."

Section 48-818 states that "In establishing wage rates the court shall take into consideration the overall compensation presently received by the employees, having regard not only to wages for time actually worked but also to wages for time not worked, including vacations, holidays, and other excused time, and all benefits received, including insurance and pensions, and the continuity and stability of employment enjoyed by the employees." This rule of overall compensation does not require an identity of benefits, but that the overall compensation be "comparable to the prevalent wage rates paid and conditions of employment for the same or similar work of workers exhibiting like or similar skills under the same or similar working conditions." These determinations must be made on the basis of the evidence introduced by the parties in the trial of the case. The determinations under Section 48-818 may, therefore, vary from case to case depending upon the evidence introduced by the parties. The evidence in this case submitted by both parties shows that substantial wage increases are due for Police Officer (Exhibits P-2, D-2, D-3), Detective/Investigator (Exhibits P-4, D-4, and D-5), and Lieutenant/Shift Commander (Exhibits P-5, D-8, and D-9).

Applying the statutory requirements to the evidence in this case, we find that the wages of Scottsbluff Police Officers should be increased as follows, effective August 1, 1978:

(a) for Police Officer, the entrance wage by $65.00 per month and the maximum wage by $85.00 per month, with equal increments applied to the intervening steps (rounded to the nearest dollar);

(b) for Detective/Investigator, the entrance wage by $35.00 per month (treating $865.00 as the entry level) and the maximum wage by $180.00 per month, with equal increments applied to the intervening steps (rounded to the nearest dollar); and

(c) for Lieutenant/Shift Commander, the entrance wage by $55.00 per month and the maximum wage by $65.00 per month, with equal increments applied to the intervening steps (rounded to the nearest dollar).

Plaintiff sought an increase in the number of paid holidays, longevity pay, and health insurance premiums paid by the City. The number of paid holidays for Scottsbluff is presently the same as Alliance, Columbus, Hastings, and McCook; one less than Norfolk; and one more than Kearney. No adjustment is warranted with respect to holidays. The longevity pay in Scottsbluff is somewhat below the average of the other Cities at the higher levels of experience, but, in our judgment, not enough to warrant an adjustment in this instance. The City's health insurance contribution is substantially below that of the other comparable police departments. Taking into consideration all of the evidence pertaining to overall compensation, we determine that the City contribution to health insurance coverage for employees having dependent coverage should be increased from the present amount (there is a disparity between the figures shown on Exhibit P-6 and Exhibit D-14) to $77.00 per month, effective August 1, 1978, (and the City payment of full premium for employees having single coverage continued).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

A) the wages of employees of the Scottsbluff Police Department shall be increased as follows, effective August 1, 1978:

(1) for Police Officer, the entrance wage by $65.00 per month and the maximum wage by $85.00 per month, with equal increments applied to the intervening steps (rounded to the nearest dollar);

(2) for Detective/Investigator, the entrance wage by $35.00 per month (treating $865.00 as the entry level) and the maximum wage by $180.00 per month, with equal increments applied to the intervening steps (rounded to the nearest dollar;

(3) for Lieutenant/Shift Commander, the entrance wage by $55.00 per month and the maximum wage by $65.00 per month, with equal increments applied to the intervening steps (rounded to the nearest dollar); and

B) the City contribution to health insurance premiums for employees having dependent coverage shall be increased from the present amount to $77.00 per month, effective August 1, 1978.

This Order shall apply to wages and working conditions for the period from August 1, 1978, to July 31, 1979.

_______________________________

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF	\|	CASE NO. 283
POLICE OFFICERS, LOCAL 535,	\|
	\|
Plaintiff,	\|
	\|
v.	\|	OPINION AND ORDER
	\|
CITY OF SCOTTSBLUFF,	\|
NEBRASKA, A Municipal	\|
Corporation,	\|
	\|
Defendant.	\|