| NEBRASKA ASSOCIATION | | | CASE NO. 567 |
| OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES, | | | REP. DOC. NO. 181 |
| | | ||
| Petitioner, | | | |
| | | ||
| v. | | | ORDER |
| | | ||
| DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL | | | |
| SERVICES, STATE OF | | | |
| NEBRASKA, | | | |
| | | ||
| Respondent. | | |
Before: Judges Mullin, Kratz and Orr
MULLIN, J:
This matter comes before the Commission on its own motion pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง25-323 (Reissue 1979).
On August 31, 1984, the Petitioner, Nebraska Association of Public Employees, filed a Petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations seeking certification as the exclusive bargaining agent for certain employees of the Respondent, Department of Social Services. In paragraph 4 of its Petition, the Petitioner alleged that two labor organizations, Scottsbluff Association of Welfare Workers and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 32, "claim to represent or may express an interest in representing" some of the same employees it claims to represent. The Respondent, Department of Social Services, filed an Answer on September 17, 1984, admitting that these organizations "may claim to represent or may express an intent in representing certain employees within an appropriate bargaining unit of the respondent." Neither labor organization, however, was made a party to this case even though it appears from the pleadings that their rights may be effected by its outcome.
Neb. Rev. Stat. Section 25-323 states: "The court may determine any controversy between the parties before it, when it can be done without prejudice to the rights of others, or by saving their rights; but when a determination of the controversy cannot be had without the presence of other parties, the court must order them to be brought in."
In Klitzing v. Didier , 215 Neb. 122, 337 N.W.2d 418 (1983), the Nebraska Supreme Court held: "Indispensable parties to a suit are those who not only have an interest in the subject matter of the controversy but also have an interest of such a nature that a final decree cannot be made without affecting their rights or leaving the controversy in such a condition that its final determination may be wholly inconsistent with equity and good conscience." Id . at 127-28, 337 N.W.2d at 421-22. See also Shepoka v. Knopik , 197 Neb. 651, 250 N.W.2d 619 (1977).
The Commission has previously ruled that labor organizations who claim an interest in representing the same employees that a party to a representation proceeding also claims to represent are indispensible parties to the case who have a right to be heard. See I.B.E.W. v. Central Nebraska P.P. & Irr. Dist ., 1 CIR No. 30 (1971); Communication Workers of America v. City of Hastings , 3 CIR 1 (1974). Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the two labor organizations named in the Petitioner's Petition should be made parties to these proceedings.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:
1) That the Petitioner, Nebraska Association of Public Employees, shall immediately cause Scottsbluff Association of Welfare Workers and American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 32 to be joined as Respondents in this case and shall further cause them to be served with notice of these proceedings in the same manner as that provided for notice of a Respondent at the commencement of an action before the Commission;
2) That the Petitioner shall also notify Scottsbluff Association of Welfare Workers and American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, Council 32 that each of them has twenty (20) days after receipt of Petitioner's Petition and Notice of Pendency in which to serve and to file a response;
3) That due to the entry of this Order, the sixty day time requirement for holding a hearing in an industrial dispute is hereby extended in this case until further order of this Commission for good cause shown on the record.
Entered October 12, 1984.
_______________________________