9 CIR 34 (1986)


| REP. DOC. NO. 212
Petitioner, |
v. | ORDER
LODGE NO. 17, |
Respondent. |


For the Petitioner: Jack L. Shultz

Nelson & Harding

1200 N Street

P.O. Box 82028

Lincoln, Nebraska 68501-2028

For the Respondent: Bruce G. Mason

Ross & Mason, P.C.

8420 West Dodge Road

Suite 105

Omaha, Nebraska 68114

Before: Judges Mullin, Cullan, and Orr


This matter came on for hearing on Thursday, October 9, 1986. The Petitioner was represented by its attorney, Jack Shultz and the Respondent was represented by its attorney, Bruce Mason. The issues raised by the pleadings were: 1) Whether there is a currently existing agreement, contract or understanding which would have resulted in the Decertification Petition in this case to be filed outside of the window period of rule 9C and 2) Whether or not three employees who signed an authorization petition are in the bargaining unit and eligible to vote.

At trial, the Respondent admitted that the latter is irrelevant and no evidence would be offered. On the remaining issue, Respondent admitted that there is no agreement at the present time but believes that the Commission's Orders involving these parties in Case No. 600, setting comparable wages and conditions of employment for the 1985-86 fiscal year, amount to an "understanding" which would cause the Decertification Petition to be in non-compliance with Rule 9C. The Petitioner's position is that a Commission Order does not amount to an understanding. We agree.

Section 48-810.01 states:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the State of Nebraska and any political or governmental subdivision thereof cannot be compelled to enter into any contract or agreement, written or otherwise, with any labor organization concerning grievances, labor disputes, rates of pay, hours of employment or conditions of work.

We find that an order of the Commission is not an understanding and therefore there can be no currently existing agreement, contract, or understanding. Therefore, the filing date of the Decertification Petition does not violate rule 9C. furthermore we have stated in In Re: South Sioux City Municipal Electrician's Association, 3 CIR 68 (1975), that "The basic contract bar doctrine deals only with a petition aimed at the period of the existing agreement." (emphasis added). The Decertification Petition in this case was filed on August 11, 1986. Our Orders in Case No. 600 were for the period July 1, 1985 through June 30, 1986. The Commission also finds:

1. That the Commission has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of the dispute;

2. That the certified bargaining unit which is subject to a decertification election is:

...all employees of the Dodge County Sheriff's Department, excluding the Sheriff, chief deputy, Sheriff's Secretary and Sergeants...

3. That the petitioner has made sufficient showing of interest to entitle it to an election, as stated in the Clerk's Report to the Commission filed August 11, 1986;

4. That an election shall be conducted as soon as possible using the eligibility list filed with the Commission on October 15, 1986. An election procedure order shall follow this Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, that an election within the unit described herein shall be held as soon as possible. The Honorable Robert W. Mullin is appointed as the Commission's Representative for such election. Jacqueline Tridle is appointed to determine initially all questions arising during the course of the election. the election shall be held under the immediate supervision of the Clerk of the Commission.

Entered October 17, 1986