| LOCALS 58, 601, 671, 1188, | | | CASE NO. 510 |
| 1459 and 2504 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, | | | |
| | | ||
| Petitioners, | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | OPINION AND ORDER |
| | | ||
| STATE OF NEBRASKA DEPARTMENT | | | |
| OF PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, | | | |
| | | ||
| Respondent. | | |
Appearances :
For the Petitioners: John B. Ashford
Dowd, Fahey & Ashford
1823 Harney, Suite 201
Omaha, Nebraska 68102
For the Respondent: Paul L. Douglas
Attorney General
and
Sharon M. Lindgren
Assistant Attorney General
2115 State Capitol
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
Before: Judges Kratz, Orr and Davis.
KRATZ, J:
This matter came on for trial on Petitioners' Amended Petition seeking an Order requiring the Respondent to bargain in good faith concerning wages and other terms and conditions of employment for the fiscal year from July 1, 1983, to June 30, 1984, and Respondent's Answer requesting that the Amended Petition be dismissed for several reasons. The last collective bargaining agreement entered into between the parties terminated on June 30, 1983. The Amended Petition also seeks a protective order requiring that the Respondent not implement any changes in the terms and conditions of employment without negotiating with the Petitioners.
Subsequent to the trial of this case, the Commission issued an Order En Bane As To Jurisdiction in State Code Agencies Education Association v. Department of Public Welfare, State of Nebraska, Case No. 520, January 17, 1984. With respect to the Commission's authority to order collective bargaining by the State of Nebraska or any agency thereof, the Order En Banc As To Jurisdiction states (pages 4-6):
"This case is one of several cases pending in the Commission in which the counsel for an agency of the State of Nebraska has raised issues concerning the jurisdiction of the Commission of Industrial Relations to settle a pending industrial dispute between the state agency and a labor organization representing its employees. The Association and the Department have negotiated collective bargaining agreements for several years prior to the 1982-1983 year in question here. These agreements were approved by the Nebraska Legislature as required by Section 48-837, R.R.S. Neb. 1943 ("provided that any such agreements with the State of Nebraska or any agency thereof shall cover an annual period coinciding with the annual budgeting period of the state and shall be subject to approval by the Legislature"), and were carried out by the parties.
***
"The 'Proviso' in Section 48-837 was offered as a floor amendment to L.B. 15 in 1969 by Senator Marvel, then Chairman of the Budget Committee. Volume 1, 1969 Nebraska Legislative Journal, page 832. The amendment referred to the 'biennial budgeting period' employed by the State of Nebraska in 1969. There was considerable legislative floor discussion of the amendment on March 5, 1969, and it was held for further consideration. See pages 528 to 532, Record of the Nebraska Legislature, March 5, 1969.
"On April 9,1969, Senator Marvel's amendment was agreed to without further debate. Volume 1, 1969 Nebraska Legislative Journal, page 1352; Page 913, Record of the Nebraska Legislature, April 9, 1969. Several years later, the Revisor of Statutes changed 'biennial' to 'annual' to correspond to the annual sessions of the Legislature.
"This 'proviso' appears to require collectively negotiated agreements with the State of Nebraska or any agency thereof to be submitted for approval by the Legislature at the same legislative session as the budget for that period is adopted by the Legislature. This interpretation of the 'proviso' seems especially compelling in view of the biennial budgeting period in effect in 1969 to which the proviso was originally applicable.
"The evidence in the record in this case indicates that prior agreements between these parties have been presented to the same Legislature as that which adopted the budget for the period 'coinciding' with the period of the collectively negotiated agreement. The same practice also appears to have been followed in other cases. See, e.g., Locals 601, 671, 1188, 1459 and 2504, AFSCME, v. State of Nebraska Department of Public Institutions, 6 CIR 233 (1982).
"The period in question in this case is the 1982-1983 annual budgeting period. We conclude that the 'proviso' in Section 48-837 precludes the Commission from ordering these parties to negotiate collectively at this time with respect to wages and conditions of employment for the 1982-1983 annual budgeting period."
The period in question in the present case is the 1983-1984 annual budgeting period. Under Section 48-837, R.R.S. Neb. 1943, collective bargaining agreements with the State of Nebraska or any agency thereof must be submitted for approval by the Legislature at the same legislative session as the budget for that period is adopted by the Legislature.
The appropriations bill for the annual budgeting period of 1983-1984 was adopted by the 1983 Session of the Nebraska Legislature. For the same reasons as those stated in the State Code Agencies Education Association Opinion and Order, set out above, we conclude that the "proviso" in Section 48-837 precludes the Commission from ordering these parties to negotiate collectively at this time with respect to wages and conditions of employment for the 1983-1984 annual budgeting period.
It is, therefore, Ordered that the Amended Petition herein be dismissed.
All Judges assigned to the panel in this matter join in the entry of this Opinion and Order.
Filed February 13, 1984
_______________________________