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 CBA terms covering 2014–2018 and 2018–2020.
Both CBAs contained a management-rights clause (Sections 3.2(g) and 3.2(j)) giving the City/Department authority to set promotion policies and adopt policies not in direct conflict with the CBA; neither CBA mentioned a residency requirement.
The Department maintained an internal residency policy (since 1995) requiring employees to live in York County; the personnel rules adopted in 2013 did not include a residency requirement.
Officer Doug Headlee (an incumbent officer living outside York County) applied for and was offered promotion to sergeant in Jan. 2019; he was presented a residency agreement requiring relocation within 6 months as a condition of the promotion and signed it.
FOP sent demand-to-bargain letters asserting residency-for-promotion is a mandatory subject and that York engaged in "side-dealing"; CIR held a trial, found the promotion condition was covered by the CBAs, dismissed FOP's prohibited-practice petition, and denied fees.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed CIR: the residency condition for Headlee’s promotion was within the compass of the CBAs and therefore York did not commit prohibited practices or engage in unlawful direct dealing.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a residency requirement for promotion was “covered by” the CBA (contract-coverage rule)	Residency is a mandatory subject of bargaining affecting incumbents and was not included in the CBA, so York must bargain.	Management-rights provisions give York authority to set promotion conditions, so residency falls within the CBA’s coverage.	The residency condition was within the compass of Sections 3.2(g) and 3.2(j); therefore the subject was covered by the CBA.
Whether York unlawfully refused to bargain / made a unilateral change (prohibited practice)	York implemented residency as a condition of promotion without bargaining to impasse.	No duty to bargain further because the issue was covered by the CBA.	No prohibited practice: once a topic is covered by the CBA, employer need not bargain further.
Whether York dealt directly with an individual employee (direct dealing / "side-deal")	York negotiated/secured a residency agreement with Headlee, undermining union representation.	York was merely implementing its promotion policy when offering the agreement; not negotiating terms that undercut the CBA.	No direct dealing: presenting and enforcing the promotion condition was implementation of policy covered by the CBA.
Whether broad management-rights language improperly relieved York of bargaining obligations (waiver/clarity)	The clauses are too general to amount to a waiver or to cover residency for incumbents.	The text unambiguously reserves promotion-policy authority to York; contract coverage, not waiver, controls.	The clauses were sufficiently specific to place promotion conditions within the CBA’s scope; contract-coverage analysis resolves the issue.

Key Cases Cited

Scottsbluff Police Off. Assn. v. City of Scottsbluff, 282 Neb. 676, 805 N.W.2d 320 (2011) (CIR has authority to decide prohibited practices under the Industrial Relations Act)
Douglas Cty. Health Ctr. Sec. Union v. Douglas Cty., 284 Neb. 109, 817 N.W.2d 250 (2012) (applies the contract-coverage rule for mandatory subjects of bargaining)
Service Empl. Internat. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist., 286 Neb. 755, 839 N.W.2d 290 (2013) (conditions of employment that affect incumbents are mandatory bargaining subjects)
Brozek v. Brozek, 292 Neb. 681, 874 N.W.2d 17 (2016) (contracts with clear terms must be given their plain and ordinary meaning)
Fed. Bur. of Prisons v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth., 654 F.3d 91 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (contract coverage need not show exact congruence; topic may be implicitly covered)
Wilkes-Barre Hosp. Co., LLC v. N.L.R.B., 857 F.3d 364 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (analyzing whether a subject is within the compass of agreement language)