|RODEO TELEPHONE, INC.|||||CASE NO. 646|
|RODEO TELEPHONE, INC.||||
|RODEO TELEPHONE, INC.||||
|v.|||||CASE NO. 647|
For the Petitioner: James A. Beltzer
Luebs, Dowding, Beltzer,
Leininger, Smith & Busick
Wheeler at First Street
P.O. Box 790
Grand Island, Nebraska 68802
For the Respondents: Paul M. Schudel
Woods, Aitken, Smith, Greer,
Overcash & Spangler
1500 American Charter Center
206 South 13th Street
Lincoln, Nebraska 68508
Dale C. Crandall
Clinch & Crandall
455 Grand Avenue
Burwell, Nebraska 68823
Before: Judges Cope, Mullin, and Kratz
This matter came on for hearing upon Respondent's Request For Post-Trial Conference filed pursuant to Section 48-816(7)(d) on June 1, 1987. A Post-Trial Conference was held on June 10, 1987. The parties were represented by their counsel of record: James Beltzer for Petitioner and Paul Schudel for Respondent.
Respondent contends that several determinations made by the Commission in its Findings and Order of May 22, 1987 either are not based upon or mischaracterize the evidence in the record. Specifically, Respondent sets out the following contentions in its Request:
1.The exclusion from the employment array of Henderson Cooperative Telephone Company, Hemingford Cooperative Telephone Company and Hershey Cooperative Telephone Company based upon an artificial "rule of thumb" tied to number of employees and access lines rather than the evidence in the record which overwhelmingly supports a conclusion that the aforesaid Companies' employments are sufficiently similar and have enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison to respondent appropriate.
2.The exclusion from the employment array of Community Memorial Hospital and Burwell Junior/Senior High School based upon an artificial "rule of thumb" tied to number of employees rather than the evidence in the record which overwhelmingly supports a conclusion that the aforesaid entities' employments are sufficiently similar and have enough like characteristics or qualities to make comparison to Respondent appropriate.
3.The inclusion of non-Nebraska employments in the array when an appropriate array of Nebraska employments is available to constitute the employment array, and further the Commission's total failure to address the in-state/out-of-state issue in accordance with previous case law enunciated by the Commission and the Nebraska Supreme Court which is applicable to these cases.
4.Creation of a separate job classification of Central Office Technician or "Combination Man-A" when the evidence discloses that said individual performs same or similar job tasks to that of the individuals in the job classification "Combination Man."
5.Inclusion of Respondent's General Manager in the back pay order for the reasons: that for the entirety of the wage year in question the facts and circumstances which led to the Commission's decision in Case No. 655 existed, that the Decision in Case No. 655 is dispositive of the wage year in question in these cases, and that the General Manager's inclusion in the supervisory unit at the date of filing the Petition is not dispositive, rather the unit's composition at the date of the Commission's Findings and Order herein should control the relief ordered.
6.Miscellaneous factual misstatements and improper job matches contained in Tables 3 through 8 of the Findings and Order.
After a thorough review of the record we fail to find any merit in Respondent's contentions listed in paragraphs 1 through 5 above. The evidence presented at trial supports our findings on these issues. Because we find no mischaracterization of the evidence, our previous findings shall stand as issued by the Commission on May 22, 1987.
In paragraph 6, above, Respondent addresses several errors it finds in Tables 3 through 8 of the Findings and Order. A review of the evidence shows that, in fact, many of these "errors" were due to our reliance on the numbers presented by the parties in the exhibits of record. Numerous discrepancies existed between the numbers set forth on the summary exhibits and the numbers set forth in the depositions introduced at trial. Where appropriate, we have changed the numbers relating to "total years of experience" based on the actual testimony of the deponents. The correct numbers are reflected on the revised tables attached. It should be noted that the column "total years of experience" on the tables reflects total years of experience in the industry, and not only those years served at Rodeo.
On Table 5 footnote (f), which coincides to the array point of Three River Telco, the footnote incorrectly cites to the incumbent position at Rainbow Tel. Coop. This reference should be to Three River Telco and is corrected in the attached tables. On Table 8 the array point of Garfield Co. Gov't. was inadvertantly omitted. Footnote (k), which coincides with this array point, was included on the table. This error has also been corrected in the attached tables.
After a review of the job matches contained in the tables and the corresponding evidence, we find that all these job matches made by the Commission are fully supported by the evidence in the record. We therefore, decline to modify or change these matches pursuant to Respondent's request.
It should be further noted that the Fringe Benefit Tables 9 through 16 were amended to reflect the proper inclusion of Burwell Elementary School in the array. The line which previously related to Community Memorial Hospital was deleted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Findings and Order of May 22, 1987 shall be amended to reflect the changes in the tables as described above. The corrected tables are attached. The remainder of the Findings and Order shall stand as originally issued by the Commission on May 22, 1987.
All judges assigned to the panel in this case join in the entry of this Final Order.
Entered June 29, 1987.