6 CIR 78 (1982).

NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

LOCAL 601, 671, 1188, 1459 AND 2504 | CASE NO. 473
OF THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, |
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, |
AFL-CIO; and COUNCIL 32 OF THE |
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY |
AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO; and |
THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, |
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, |
|
Petitioners, |
|
v. | OPINION AND ORDER
|
STATE OF NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT OF |
PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, |
|
Respondent. |

Appearances:

For the Petitioners: John B. Ashford

Bradford, Coennen and Ashford

300 S. 19th Street

Omaha, Nebraska

For the Respondent: Lynne Fritz

Attorney General's Office

State of Nebraska

Before: Judges Kratz, Davis, and Orr

KRATZ, D.:

The Petitioner requests an order (1) requiring the Respondent to commence bargaining with Petitioner concerning terms and conditions of employment, including wages, (2) appointing a mediator to assist in resolving the dispute, and (3) continuing in effect the existing collective bargaining agreement, or in the alternative "that the agreed upon terms and conditions of employment in the proposed 1982-83 collective bargaining agreement be implemented pending a further order of this commission."

The parties are presently covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The term of this agreement is in dispute. Petitioner claims that it was the understanding of the parties that except for the specifically listed provisions in Article XXIII, the existing agreement continued on until June 30, 1982. There is no language in the agreement itself which would indicate that it extends beyond June 30, 1982, and we find that the agreement will expire at that time. Consequently, the alternate remedy requested by the Petitioner is not available.

The parties agree that the Governor and the State Legislature determine the wages for state agencies, including Petitioner, and that all state employees, including employees of Petitioner, will receive a 5% increase on January 1, 1983. Petitioner argues, nevertheless, that the parties can negotiate wages. This apparently would involve a process whereby the Petitioner attempts at the bargaining table to have Respondent agree to go to the Legislature and/or the Governor with a proposal that would provide for a wage increase prior to January 1, 1983, or a larger increase on January 1, 1983, than the present 5%. Even though it takes this position, Petitioner has never made any request for a wage increase from the Respondent during the negotiations for a new 1982-83 agreement.

There has been one negotiation meeting between the parties. Wages were not discussed and the parties seemed to temporarily agree on two minor changes in the language of the contract. When the Respondent reduced those changes to writing and presented the new contract (Exhibit #3) to Petitioner, Petitioner refused to execute it, claiming that to do so might interfere with future wage increases.

Petitioner brings this action because it fears the Respondent may change the wages and conditions after June 30, 1982, if Exhibit #3 is not executed. 1 Respondent does not deny that it might do this. 2

In the private sector, the National Labor Relations Act has been interpreted to require that the parties to a collective bargaining agreement continue it in effect beyond its expiration date until either a new agreement has been consummated, or the parties have reached impasse in their negotiations. NLRB v. Haberman Construction Company , 618 F. 2d 288.

Section 48-811 of the Nebraska statutes provides in part:

No adverse action by threat or harassment shall be taken against any employee because of any petition filing by such employee, and the employment status of such employee shall not be altered in any way pending disposition of the petition by the commission. (Emphasis supplied)

Though they never have mentioned wages during any correspondence or negotiations, the Petitioner now wants to discuss wages with the Respondent. In light of the fact that this is a matter for the Legislature and the Governor, there may not be much to talk about. Nevertheless, we are of the opinion the Petitioner has the right to discuss wages, as well as other conditions of employment, with the Respondent. There is no need to appoint a mediator.

It is, therefore, ordered that the existing wages and conditions of employment will continue in effect pending final disposition of this case, and Respondent will, upon request, bargain collectively with Petitioner with respect to wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment.

All Judges assigned to the panel in this matter join in this Opinion and Order.

1. Robert Thompson, Business representative for Petitioner, had been told it was Respondent's position that "if the contract is not signed by June 30, there will be no contract."

2. Jim Friel, personnel manager for Respondent, testified that he could not guarantee there would be no condition changes after June 30, 1982, if Exhibit #3 was not signed.

Filed June 30, 1982.

_______________________________