| HASTINGS EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, | | | CASE NO. 479 |
| An Unincorporated Association, | | | |
| | | ||
| Plaintiff, | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | OPINION AND ORDER |
| | | ||
| THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OF HASTINGS, | | | |
| IN THE COUNTY OF ADAMS, IN THE STATE OF | | | |
| NEBRASKA, A Political Subdivision, | | | |
| | | ||
| Defendant. | | |
Appearances:
For the Plaintiff: Theodore L. Kessner
Crosby, Guenzel, Davis, Kessner
& Kuester
400 Lincoln Benefit Building
Lincoln, Nebraska
For the Defendant: Charles W. Hastings
P.O. Box 1044
Hastings, Nebraska
Before: Judges Kratz, Gradwohl and Berkheimer.
GRADWOHL, J:
This matter came on for a determination of wages and other conditions of employment for Hastings School District teachers for the 1982-1983 contract year pursuant to Section 48-818. Hastings is a Class III school district employing 189 teachers (186.07 full-time equivalent) and had a student enrollment for the 1981-1982 school year of 3,339 students.
The parties agreed that except for base salary and paid health insurance (dependents' coverage) the terms and conditions of employment for the teachers employed by the School District for the 1982-1983 contract year shall be as previously agreed to by the parties. The Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.
1. Statute .
The controlling statute is Section 48-818, which states:
"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 Commission 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 commission 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 commission'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. Comparable School Districts .
The Association and the School District both presented comparisons with the following five school districts: Columbus, Fremont, Grand Island, Kearney, and McCook. The Association also presented comparisons with the school districts of North Platte and Scottsbluff. The School District in addition presented comparisons with the school districts of Beatrice and Lexington. The parties agreed that the work skills and working conditions of the teachers employed by Hasting and the teachers employed in all nine of the compared to districts (Beatrice, Columbus, Fremont, Grand Island, Kearney, Lexington, McCook, North Platte and Scottsbluff) are similar and satisfy the standards set forth in Section 48-818 to permit a comparison of terms and conditions of employment if included in the array of compared to School Districts by the Commission.
The evidence in this case as to the compared to school districts, in addition to the stipulation as to work skills and working conditions, consists of the size and ranking of the districts by student enrollment, county, distance from Hastings, community of interest of the other districts with Hastings, especially concerning athletic contacts, and some further testimony presented at the hearing.
Table 1 sets out some of the information about the school districts in the proposed arrays.
In Fraternal Order of Police v. County of Adams , 205 Neb. 682, 685, 289 N.W.2d 535, 537 (1980), the Supreme Court stated that "In selecting employment units in reasonably similar labor markets for the purpose of comparison as to wage rates and other benefits, the question is whether, as a matter of fact, the units selected for comparison are sufficiently similar and have enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison appropriate." From the evidence in this case, it is determined that a suitable array for the purposes of Section 48-818 should consist of teachers in the following school districts: Columbus, Fremont, Grand Island, Kearney, and McCook. They were agreed to by the parties and constitute five of the seven schools presented by the Association and five of the seven schools presented by the District. They have a similarity in student enrollment and in geographic proximity, as well as being members of the same athletic conference.
Neither party presented a theory of selectivity concerning their proposed array explaining why certain school districts were included and other school districts were excluded. The five school districts agreed upon by the parties are individually suitable for the purposes of Section 48-818 and collectively comprise an appropriate array. We decline to include Beatrice, Lexington, North Platte and Scottsbluff for the reason that to do so would detract from the quality of the array of the five conference schools submitted by both parties as comparable to Hastings. See Brule Teachers Association v. School District Number 17 , 5 CIR 319 (1981); Butte Education Association v. School District Number 5 , 5 CIR 232 (1981); Rosalie Faculty Association v. Rosalie Public Schools , 5 CIR 82 (1980); Spencer Education Association v. School District of Spencer , 3 CIR 298 (1977). It is not necessary to determine whether in other circumstances these schools could be included in an array used to resolve another industrial dispute. See Crete Education Association v. School District of Crete , 193 Neb. 245, 255, 226 N.W.2d 752, 758 (1975).
3. Applicable Rules of Procedure, Evidence and Burden of Proof
The procedure in the Commission of Industrial Relations must conform to the code of civil procedure applicable to the district courts of the state except as modified by Commission Rule or by a specific statute pertaining to the Commission. Section 48-812 See Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 8 v. County of Douglas , 4 CIR 185 (1980). The Commission is bound to follow the rules of evidence applicable to the trial of civil cases. Section 48-809; Plattsmouth Police Department Collective Bargaining Committee v. City of Plattsmouth , 205 Neb. 567, 288 N.W. 2d 729 (1980). Decisions must be based solely upon evidence in the record or evidence of which a district court might take judicial notice. Section 48-817; General Drivers and Helpers Union v. City of West Point , 204 Neb. 238, 281 N.W.2d 772 (1979).
The burden is on the moving party in a Section 48-818 determination to demonstrate that existing wage rates, hours of labor, and conditions of employment are not comparable to the prevalent wage rates, hours of labor, and conditions of employment. The burden of proof is satisfied by actual proof of the facts, of which proof is necessary, regardless of which party introduces the evidence. Lincoln Fire Fighters Assn. v. City of Lincoln , 198 Neb. 174, 178, 252 N.W.2d 607, 610 (1977).
The parties made several agreements and stipulations at the pretrial conference. The Association and the District agreed that the exhibits presented at the pretrial conference or revised exhibits on the same subjects could be received in evidence at trial without objection as to foundation. The parties agreed to attempt to arrive at an agreement concerning the number of teachers receiving each of the different coverages of health insurance, the total compensation presently received by Hastings teachers for the purposes of this case, and the total compensation which the Hastings teachers would receive on the schedules of the compared to employments, especially the agreed to districts of Columbus, Fremont, Grand Island, Kearney, and McCook.
Unfortunately, there was not an agreement by the parties before the trial on certain facts essential to the Section 48-818 comparisons. The statutes require that the decision in this matter be based upon facts received in evidence under the rules applicable to civil cases. Although the respective exhibits were introduced without objection as to foundation in accordance with the pretrial conference stipulation, there are unnecessary disparities in the evidence in this matter. Based upon the evidence in the record we find that the District's teacher placement (see especially Exhibit 14) should be used for comparison with the other school districts. The District's Associate Superintendent testified that the Defendant's exhibits were prepared from the business records of the school district (59:4-6). To the extent that the Association and the District had differing figures based on the actual placement of Hastings' teachers on the other districts' salary schedules and fringe benefit programs (63:21-66:3), we have used the District's figures as the basis for the decision in this matter. The Fremont figures reflect the District's corrections made during the trial and recalculations contained in the District's post-hearing briefs.
4. Determinations as to "Overall Compensation ".
Section 48-818 states that "In establishing wage rates the commission 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 maintained for 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, R.R.S. 1943, may, therefore, vary from case to case depending upon the evidence introduced by the parties.
The evidence establishes the following salary and fringe benefit comparisons as compiled in Table 2.
The following Table 3 shows the employer contribution toward health insurance premiums for single and dependent coverage in the schools selected for comparison.
One area of dispute between the parties concerns the amount of health insurance premium the District should pay for dependents' coverage when one family member is employed by the District. The parties are agreed that the payment should be $50.73 per month for single coverage and $147.87 per month for dependents 'coverage when two family members are employed by the district. The Association seeks payment of the full $137.27 per month dependents' health insurance premium when one family member is employed by the District. The District's position is that it should pay a dollar figure as contrasted to the "full premium" and that the dollar figure should be less than the amount of the full premium. The District used a figure of $123.54 per month in its illustrative calculations (Exhibit 10) and in its post-hearing Briefs (Brief, page 19; Reply Brief, page 3).
The evidence shows that prior to 1981-1982, the District paid a dollar amount toward dependents' health insurance coverage which was less than the full cost of the insurance. For 1981-1982, the District agreed to pay a dollar amount equal to the full insurance premium. Its reason given at the trial was "that we were trying to open up our options in terms of insurance coverage, insurance carriers, and most of the carriers that we had made inquiry to demanded as a condition of taking on our package a hundred percent participation." (53:21-25). A change of insurance carriers did not take place and the District no longer desires to continue payment of the full dependents' premium when one spouse is employed by the District.
Applying the statutory. criteria of Section 48-818 to the evidence in the case, we find that effective at the beginning of the 1982-1983 school contract year, the base salary amount for Hastings teachers shall be $12,420.00 and that the employer contribution to dependents' health insurance for a family with one employee premium shall be $123.54 per month. This represents a standard salary schedule of $3,572,303.74 (base salary amount of $12,420.00 multiplied by the staff index factor of 287.6251), plus fringe benefits of $214,915.78 (calculating insurance premium payments of $50.73, $123.54 and $147.87 per month as set out above and long term disability insurance premiums at .0058 of gross salary) which makes the total teacher compensation for the purposes of these calculations: $3,787,219.52.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1. The base salary amount for Hastings School District teachers shall be $12,420.00, effective at the beginning of the 1982-1983 school contract year.
2.The District shall contribute $123.54 per month towards dependents' health insurance premiums, when one family member is employed by the District, effective at the beginning of the 1982-1983 school contract year.
3. This Order shall be effective for wages and conditions of employment with respect to the 1982-1983 school contract year. The adjustments resulting from this Order shall be made ratably over the twelve months of the school contract year. The amount due for the portion of the school contract year already elapsed shall be paid as soon as feasible following the entry of the Order.
All Judges assigned to the panel in this case join in the entry of this Opinion and Order.
Entered November 9, 1982.
_______________________________