8 CIR 77 (l985)

NEBRASKA COMMISSION OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

SHERMAN COUNTY TEACHERS | CASE NO. 578
ASSOCIATION, An |
Unincorporated Association, |
|
Petitioner, |
|
v. | FINDINGS AND ORDER
|
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, |
SHERMAN COUNTY, NEBRASKA, |
also known as LITCHFIELD |
PUBLIC SCHOOLS, A Political |
Subdivision, |
|
Respondent. |

Appearances:

For the Petitioner: Theodore L. Kessner

Crosby, Guenzel, Davis,

Kessner & Kuester

400 Lincoln Benefit Building

Lincoln, Nebraska

For the Respondent: John R. Higgins, Jr.

Higgins & Martin

1503 West Second Street

P.O. Box 1068

Grand Island, Nebraska

Before: Judges Orr, Kratz and Ashford.

ORR, J:

The Sherman County Teachers Association, hereinafter referred to as the "Association", filed suit with the Commission of Industrial Relations to resolve an industrial dispute concerning teachers employed by School District No. 15 (Litchfield Public Schools) for the 1984-85 contract year pursuant to Section 48-818. School District No. 15, hereinafter referred to as the "District", is a Class II school district employing 17 teachers with a student enrollment of 157 students.

The issues for resolution by the Commission are base salary, the addition of an MA + 9 column to the index salary schedule, and the paid insurance coverage teachers are to receive.

The Commission has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject matter.

1. Statute.

The controlling statute is Section 48-818, which states, in part:

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.

2. Comparable School Districts

The Association and the District both presented comparisons with the following seven school districts: Amherst, Anselmo-Merna, Arcadia, Elba, Greeley, Sandhills and Wolbach. In addition to the seven common school districts, the Association included in its array the school districts of Arnold, Callaway and Pleasanton. The Association's expert testified that the work skills and working conditions of the teachers employed by the District and all ten of the compared to districts 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 parties presented evidence as to student enrollment, county, number of miles from the District, athletic conferences, and community of interest with the District as demonstrated by athletic and non-athletic contacts in the compared to school districts. Table 1 is a reflection of that evidence.

In selecting employments for the purpose of comparison in arriving at comparable and prevalent wage rates and conditions of employment, the question is whether, as a matter of fact, the employments selected for comparison are sufficiently similar and have enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison appropriate in that situation. Fraternal Order of Police v. County of Adams , 205 Neb. 682, 685, 289 N.W.2d 535, 537 (1980); Omaha Assn. of Firefighters v. City of Omaha , 194 Neb. 436, 441, 231 N.W.2d 710, 713 (1975); Crete Education Assn. v. School Dist. of Crete , 193 Neb. 245, 255, 226 N.W.2d 752, 758 (1975).

In selecting an array of school districts for the purpose of comparison in arriving at comparable and prevalent wage rates and conditions of employment, the Commission has considered, among other factors, the following: student enrollment, geographic proximity, athletic conference membership and community of interest demonstrated by athletic and non-athletic contacts. In considering the evidence as to these factors, the Commission determines that a suitable array for the purposes of Section 48-818 should consist of the following school districts: Amherst, Anselmo-Merna, Arcadia, Callaway, Elba, Greeley, Pleasanton, Sandhills and Wolbach.

We have included in our array the seven school districts agreed upon by the parties, plus Callaway and Pleasanton. All of these districts are within the one-half to twice as large guideline frequently used by the Commission. See Diller Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 103, Jefferson County , 7 CIR 196, 200 (1984). Each district is relatively close to the District and has a number of athletic and non-athletic contacts with it. We have declined to include the school district of Arnold in our array. Although Arnold is less than twice as large as the District and is relatively proximate to it, Arnold has only one contact with the District as compared to a minimum of five contacts with the districts included in our array. Based on the facts in the record, the nine districts selected above form a suitable array for the purposes of Section 48-818.

3. Index Salary Schedules

One of the issues in dispute is the structure of the index salary schedule. The present schedule does not extend beyond the BA + 36 or MA level and presently has a maximum of eleven verticle steps. The Association contends that an "MA + 9" column with 12 verticle steps should be added to the existing salary schedule. The District wants the salary schedule to remain unchanged from its present structure.

The Commission has been reluctant to change salary schedules in the past. In West Holt Faculty Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 25 , 5 CIR 301 (1981), we stated: "it is the Commission's experience that because of varying effects of different schedules on teachers within the bargaining group, changes in structure are best achieved through collective bargaining and that past practice should not be disturbed in the absence of substantial variances from prevalent practice...." Id . at 309. See also, School Dist. No. 125, Frontier County v. Curtis Education Ass'n , 7 CIR 96, 103 (1983). The CIR will change a salary schedule when appropriate to achieve comparability to prevalency. This is particularly true when a substantial variance exists between the compared to salary schedules and the one in issue and a change by the CIR will not result in a materially large disturbance of the internal balance of the schedule. See Ralston Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Ralston , 6 CIR 416, 421 (1983); Millard Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. of Millard , 5 CIR 425, 434 (1982).

Table 2 shows a comparison of the MA + 9 columns in each of the school districts in the array.

As Table 2 demonstrates, an MA + 9 column is prevalent. Eight of the nine compared to districts have such a column. The number of steps in the column varies among the school districts, however. Four of the compared to districts have less than twelve verticle steps at MA + 9 while four of the districts have twelve or more steps. The addition of an MA + 9 column with 12 verticle steps would affect the placement of only one of the seventeen teachers currently employed in the District. Based on the evidence in this case, we find that the addition of an MA + 9 column with twelve verticle steps is prevalent and does not materially affect the internal balance of the salary schedule.

4. Paid Insurance Benefits

The District currently provides insurance coverage for its teachers through a package which combines group health, life and accidental death and dismemberment coverage through Security Mutual Life Insurance Company, with group dental insurance through Bankers Life Nebraska and a program of self insurance.

The Association wants the Commission to order the District to discontinue this package and to implement an NSEA endorsed insurance program provided through Blue Cross/Blue Shield, called the "Blue Cross/Blue Shield Statewide Teachers Insurance Plan". Eight of the nine compared to districts provide insurance coverage through the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan. The Association argues that the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan is unique in the benefits it provides and is prevalent among the compared to school districts. The Association contends that only by the implementation of this plan will teachers at the District receive the benefits provided to teachers at the compared to school districts.

The District asserts that the Commission should compare benefits, not insurance carriers, in determining whether its teachers are receiving coverage comparable to the prevalent. It argues that the benefits provided by its insurance program are comparable or superior to those provided by the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan.

The Commission, in making fringe benefit comparisons under ยง48-818, stated in Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska v. American Ass'n of University Professors , 7 CIR 1 (1983):

Section 48-818 provides 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 work of workers exhibiting like or similar skills under 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.

Id . at 25. Accord, Nebraska Dept. of Educ. Teachers Ass'n v. Dept. of Educ. , 7 CIR 236, 244 (1984), aff'd on other grounds , 219 Neb.555, 364 N.W.2d 44 (1985); State Code Agencies Educ. Ass'n v. Dept. of Corrections , 7 CIR 226, 233 (1984), aff'd on other grounds , 219 Neb. 555, 364 N.W.2d 44 (1985); Platte County Dist. No. 24 Teachers Org. v. School Dist. No. 24, Platte County , 7 CIR 167, 176 (1984); School Dist. No. 125, Frontier County v. Curtis Educ. Ass'n , 7 CIR 96, 108 (1983).

In examining the exhibits and the expert testimony presented in this case, we find that the insurance benefits currently provided by the District are comparable to those provided at the compared to districts and should not be changed.

5. Base Salary Determination

The only remaining issue for resolution by the Commission is a determination of base salary.

In Millard Education Association v. School District of Millard , 5 CIR 425 (1982), we said:

The Commission's usual method of determining and using total teacher compensation in schools in an array for comparison purposes is to add total salaries which would be paid the subject teachers by schools in the array to the cost of fringe benefits which would be furnished the subject teachers by the schools in the array, and a comparable total compensation amount is determined for those teachers. Once this figure is determined the Commission determines comparable fringe benefits for the subject school and the cost of such benefits. This fringe benefit cost is subtracted from the total compensation determined to be comparable leaving the amount of total salaries to be paid. The total salary amount is then divided by the school staff index factor to determine base salary. This method produces a proper result where the cost of comparable fringe benefits is substantially the same for the subject school as for the schools in the array.

The evidence in this case is that the Millard District is providing levels of insurance benefits comparable to those of the other schools but at a materially lower cost. The Association contends that the Commission in this case should follow its usual procedure. The District however points out that if the Commission determines total compensation including cost of insurance benefits by comparison with such an inclusive total compensation at other schools and then subtracts Millard's insurance costs to arrive at Millard's total salary compensation, the amount Millard saves on insurance will be added to its salary costs resulting in its receiving no consideration for its efforts in negotiating a lesser insurance cost.

Section 48-818 R.R.S. 1943 requires that the Commission "take into consideration the overall compensation presently received by the employees having regard to... all benefits received including insurance..." It is clear from the statute that in arriving at overall compensation regard must be given to benefits rather than the cost of the benefits. Where there is an equation between benefits and cost by which benefits can be translated to dollar amounts for the purpose of computing overall compensation this has been done. Here the evidence is that such translation is not possible. If the Commission were to follow its prior methodology, Millard teachers who are receiving comparable insurance benefits would receive higher salaries because the District provided those benefits at a lesser cost to itself. It is not in the public interest for the Commission to destroy the incentive for public employers to seek the best bargain. The Commission's past measurement of benefits in terms of dollar cost in arriving at a dollar amount of "overall compensation" and computing salaries with reference thereto has not been for the purpose of imposing a budget but rather for the purpose of measuring comparability of compensation.

The Commission here finds that the cost of insurance should be excluded from total compensation in computing the total compensation which would be paid Millard teachers at the other schools and in determining what Millard's total compensation should be.

Id . at 436-37. Cf. Clarks Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 11, Merrick County , 6 CIR 431 (1983) (in which the Commission found that cost variances had an "insignificant impact" on the determination of base salary).

We find that the District's current insurance program results in significant costs savings to the District1 and that the cost of insurance should be excluded from our calculations in determining the base salary for the District's teachers.

In making our base salary determination, we find that the standard salary schedule figures provided by the parties should be adjusted for differences in contract days between the District and the compared to school districts. See Nebraska Dept. of Educ. Teachers Ass'n v. Dept. of Educ. , 7 CIR 236 (1984), aff'd on other grounds , 219 Neb. 555, 364 N.W.2d 44 (1985); School Dist. No. 124, Frontier County v. Curtis Educ. Ass'n , 7 CIR 96 (1983); Republican Valley Educ. Ass'n v. School Dist. No. 109R , 7 CIR 58 (1983); West Holt Faculty Ass'n v. School Dist. 25 of Holt County , 5 CIR 301 (1981). Similarly, the Commission has made adjustments based on differences in work week hours in Fraternal Order of Police Local No. 12 v. County of Adams , 3 CIR 585 (1978), aff'd , 205 Neb. 682, 289 N.W.2d 535 (1980).

The standard salary schedule figures, adjusted for differences in contract days, are shown in Table 3.

1 For example, the monthly cost of health insurance under the Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan is $66.51 for each teacher receiving single coverage and $180.48 for each teacher receiving dependent coverage. Under the Security Mutual plan provided by the District, the monthly premium cost for single coverage is $62.93 per teacher and $143.06 for dependent coverage.

TABLE 3

Comparison of 1984-85 Standard Salary Schedules

THIS IS THE ONLY FOOTNOTE WE LEFT FOR THIS TABLE:

(c) Petitioner's placement of the District's teachers upon the compared to districts salary schedule resulted in a different staff index factor than that computed by the Respondent (compare Petitioner's Exhibit No. 7 with Respondent's Exhibit No. 20). Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the number listed here is the average of each party's staff index factor (See T182: 7-18).

Applying the statutory criteria of 48-818 to the evidence in this case, we find that the base salary for the District's teachers should be $12,830.00 for the 1984-85 school year.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED:

1. That the base salary amount for School District Number 15, Sherman County teachers shall be $12,830.00, effective for the 1984-85 school contract year.

2. That an MA + 9 column with 12 verticle steps shall be added to the existing index salary schedule for the 1984-85 school contract year.

3. That paid insurance benefits provided by the District for the 1984-85 school contract year shall remain unchanged.

4. That the salary 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 possible following the entry of this Order.

All judges assigned to the panel in this case join in the entry of these Findings and Order.

Entered May 20, 1985.

_______________________________