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

Background

FOP Lodge 31 is the exclusive bargaining agent for York Police Department officers; parties had CBAs effective 2014–2018 and 2018–2020.
Both CBAs contain a management-rights clause (Sections 3.2(g) and 3.2(j)) giving the City authority to establish promotion policies; neither CBA explicitly requires county residency.
The Department had an internal residency policy (employees should live in York County) in effect since 1995; York personnel rules did not contain a residency requirement.
The Department posted a sergeant promotion; Chief Tjaden offered Officer Doug Headlee the promotion conditioned on signing a residency agreement to live in York County within 6 months, which Headlee signed and later did not comply with.
FOP twice demanded bargaining over applying a residency requirement to incumbent-promoted employees; York declined and FOP filed a prohibited-practice petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR).
The CIR dismissed the petition, finding the residency condition was "covered by" the CBAs under the contract-coverage rule; Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a residency requirement for promotions is covered by the CBA (so no further bargaining)	Residency affects conditions of employment and is a mandatory subject not included in the CBA	Management-rights and promotion provisions grant the City authority to set promotion conditions, so residency is within scope	Covered: court held sections 3.2(g) and 3.2(j) bring residency within the agreement's compass, so no bargaining required
Whether York committed a prohibited practice by refusing to bargain over residency	York refused to bargain in good faith over a mandatory subject and thus violated §48-824	No duty to bargain because the topic was covered by the CBA; York merely implemented existing policy	No prohibited practice: implementing a covered promotion condition is not a refusal to bargain
Whether the management-rights language is too vague to amount to waiver or coverage	Vague, all‑inclusive language cannot be read to waive bargaining rights without clear and unmistakable language	The contract-coverage inquiry governs first; the promotion and management clauses are sufficiently specific to cover promotion conditions	Court applied contract-coverage rule and held the clauses were sufficiently specific; no waiver analysis needed
Whether York engaged in unlawful direct dealing/side‑dealing by entering a residency agreement with Headlee	Offering and obtaining Headlee’s signature constituted direct dealing with an incumbent bargaining‑unit member	The meeting and residency agreement were implementation of a promotion policy covered by the CBA, not an attempt to undercut the union	Not direct dealing: actions were implementation of a covered policy, not bargaining around the union

Key Cases Cited

Scottsbluff Police Officers Ass'n v. City of Scottsbluff, 282 Neb. 676, 805 N.W.2d 320 (Neb. 2011) (discusses prohibited-practice framework under Nebraska law)
Douglas Cty. Health Ctr. Sec. Union v. Douglas Cty., 284 Neb. 109, 817 N.W.2d 250 (Neb. 2012) (articulates the contract-coverage rule for mandatory bargaining subjects)
Service Employees Internat. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 286 Neb. 755, 839 N.W.2d 290 (Neb. 2013) (explains when a matter implicates working-conditions and mandatory bargaining)
Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (Neb. 2016) (principles on giving contract terms their plain and ordinary meaning)
Federal Bureau of Prisons v. Federal Labor Relations Auth., 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (authority on contract coverage and finality during a contract term)
Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC v. N.L.R.B., 857 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (discusses the ‘‘within the compass’’ standard for coverage)