|FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,|||||CASE NO. 600|
|LODGE NO. 17,||||
|COUNTY OF DODGE, NEBRASKA||||
|and RICHARD G. WENNSTEDT,||||
|DODGE COUNTY SHERIFF,||||
Before Judges Mullin, Orr, and Kratz
This matter came on for hearing on Respondent's Request for Post-Trial Conference under 48-816(7)(d) on June 19, 1986. The parties were represented by their counsel of record: William A. Harding for Respondent appearing in person and Bruce G. Mason for Petitioner appearing by conference telephone.
Respondent contends the evidence shows that the industrial dispute spans two contract years: 1984-85 and 1985-86. Respondent further contends that under the authority of Crete Education Association v. School District of Crete , 193 Neb. 245, 226 N.W.2d 752 (1975), we could reduce wages for 1984-85 or offset the 84-85 "overpayment" against an ordered increase for 1985-86 without violating the prohibition against retroactive orders set forth in 48-817 R.R.S. 1943 (Reissue 1984).
The evidence on this point is found in the following Petitioner's Response to Request for Admissions admitted into evidence:
1. Negotiations between the Petitioner and the County of Dodge were initiated by way of a November 1, 1983 written request to bargain transmitted from the chairman of the Plaintiff's bargaining committee to the County.
2. Negotiations between the Petitioner and the County of Dodge continued until impasse was declared on August 22, 1985.
RESPONSE : ADMITS.
3. During negotiations, the County of Dodge presented the Petitioner with the results of the comparability survey conducted by the County which showed that employees in the bargaining unit represented by the Petitioner were paid more than comparability for Fiscal Year 1984-85.
4. As a result of its comparability survey, the County of Dodge requested from the Petitioner either a wage decrease for employees in the bargaining unit for Calendar Year 1984-85 or an offset against any wage increase for Calendar Year 1985-86. RESPONSE: ADMITS.
5. The Petitioner did not agree with the County of Dodge concerning this issue and this issue was one of the issues on which the parties had not reached agreement when impasse was declared. RESPONSE: ADMITS.
and in the following testimony by Respondent's expert:
JUDGE MULLIN: Were you involved in the negotiations between the parties?
A. I made one presentation to the meeting explaining the wage study that had been conducted, the summary and results.
JUDGE MULLIN: Do you know how the reduction of wages or offset for wages became an issue, at what point it became an issue?
A.I don't believe I was present during those negotiations when that came up. I wasn't.
Neither party sought resolution of the industrial dispute during fiscal year 1984-85. The petition was filed September 27, 1985, after the conclusion of the 1984-85 fiscal year (Report of Pretrial Conference). To now revise salaries for 1984-85 would be "retroactive" and in contravention of 48-817. To offset an "overpayment" in 1984-85 against 1985-86 salaries would effectively be a retroactive reduction.
The Findings and Order of June 5, 1986 is final as supplemented herein as of this date.
Entered June 19, 1986.