Fraternal Order of Police v. City of York, 309 Neb. 359

Background

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 31 (FOP) is the exclusive bargaining agent for York Police Department officers; the parties had a 2014 CBA and a 2019 CBA (retroactive to Oct. 1, 2018). Both CBAs contained management-rights clauses (sections 3.2(g) and 3.2(j)) and a promotion provision (Art. XI §11.1) but did not mention a residency requirement.
York Police Department maintained internal personnel policies (dating to 1995, revised 2010) that required officers to reside in York County (with a waiver available from the city administrator); those policies were not part of the CBAs and were not adopted by the city council.
In late 2018 the Department posted a sergeant vacancy and required the promoted candidate to sign a residency agreement committing to move into York County within 6 months. Officer Doug Headlee (an incumbent living outside York County) applied, was selected, signed the residency agreement, and was promoted.
FOP repeatedly demanded bargaining over applying the residency requirement to incumbent promotions, alleging the requirement is a mandatory bargaining subject and that York engaged in direct dealing and unilateral change. York declined to bargain, asserting the CBAs’ management-rights language covered promotion criteria.
FOP filed a prohibited-practice petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR). The CIR dismissed the petition, holding the residency condition was "covered by" the CBAs under the contract-coverage rule and therefore York did not commit prohibited practices. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was applying a residency requirement to an incumbent promotion a mandatory subject of bargaining that York unlawfully implemented without bargaining to impasse?	FOP: residency for incumbents is a condition of employment (mandatory) and York imposed it without bargaining.	York: even if mandatory, the CBAs cover promotion conditions via management-rights clauses, so no further bargaining was required.	Held: The residency condition was within the compass of the CBAs (sections 3.2(g) and 3.2(j)); therefore York did not commit a prohibited practice.
Did York’s negotiation/implementation with Headlee constitute unlawful direct dealing with a represented employee?	FOP: York dealt directly with Headlee (an FOP member) to impose terms, undermining collective bargaining.	York: it was implementing existing promotion policy covered by the CBA, not undermining the union.	Held: CIR and court: no unlawful direct dealing; York implemented a promotion condition covered by the CBA.
Do broad management-rights provisions amount to a clear and unmistakable waiver of bargaining on residency?	FOP: broad, nonspecific management clauses cannot be read as waiving bargaining over mandatory subjects.	York: the express CBA language granting promotion-policy authority covers residency decisions.	Held: Court拒rejects a relaxed-waiver standard; here the CBA terms were clear enough to show coverage of promotion conditions, so no separate waiver analysis was required.
Was the CIR’s contract-coverage analysis consistent with precedent and statutory policy favoring bargaining?	FOP: CIR misapplied precedent and overbroadly construed coverage, undermining bargaining rights.	York: CIR correctly applied the contract-coverage rule, preserving finality of negotiated terms during a contract’s life.	Held: Court affirmed CIR’s application of the contract-coverage rule and emphasized finality of CBAs; the contested topic fell within the agreement’s compass.

Key Cases Cited

Douglas Cty. Health Ctr. Sec. Union v. Douglas Cty., 284 Neb. 109, 817 N.W.2d 250 (Neb. 2012) (explains the contract-coverage rule for mandatory bargaining subjects)
Service Empl. Internat. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 286 Neb. 755, 839 N.W.2d 290 (Neb. 2013) (defines when management prerogatives are not mandatory subjects and when working conditions are bargainable)
Scottsbluff Police Off. Assn. v. City of Scottsbluff, 282 Neb. 676, 805 N.W.2d 320 (Neb. 2011) (discusses prohibited-practice standards under the Industrial Relations Act)
Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. 2016) (principles of contract interpretation—plain meaning and giving effect to the contract as a whole)
Fed. Bur. of Prisons v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (authoritative discussion on what it means for a subject to be "covered" by an agreement)
Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC v. N.L.R.B., 857 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (addresses scope-of-coverage inquiry for collective-bargaining agreements)