DOUGLAS COUNTY COM'RS v. CIVIL SVC. COM'N
| Citation | 263 Neb. 544,641 N.W.2d 55 |
| Decision Date | 29 March 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. S-00-1155.,S-00-1155. |
| Parties | DOUGLAS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS et al., Appellees, v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Nebraska, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
641 N.W.2d 55
263 Neb. 544
v.
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION OF DOUGLAS COUNTY, Nebraska, Appellant
No. S-00-1155.
Supreme Court of Nebraska.
March 29, 2002.
Soren S. Jensen and Karl von Oldenburg, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, for appellees.
HENDRY, C.J., WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER-LERMAN, JJ.
HENDRY, C.J.
INTRODUCTION
In an order dated April 6, 2000, the Civil Service Commission of Douglas County (Commission) ordered the Douglas County Board of Commissioners (Board) to increase its portion of health insurance premium payments for all "non-bargaining unit employees" employed by the county, effective January 1, 2000. The Board appealed the Commission's order to the Douglas County District Court, which vacated the order. The Commission appeals.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 14, 1999, the Board ratified an employment agreement between the Board and the Douglas County Health Department Employees Association (Association). The Association is the bargaining unit for health department union employees. The agreement provided in part that
The agreement ratified by the Board became effective January 1, 2000. After the agreement went into effect, Association members paid a smaller percentage of their health insurance premiums than that being paid by nonbargaining unit employees.
Four registered nurses employed by the department of health as nonbargaining unit employees, acting pro se, appealed the Board's December 14, 1999, decision to the Commission. On April 6, 2000, the Commission held a hearing on the nurses' appeal. All four nurses were present at the hearing, but only one nurse testified. This nurse asked the Commission to find that the agreement ratified by the Board violated "Article 2, page 10," of the "Civil Service Personnel Policy Manual" by providing an "enhanced contribution benefit" for Association members.
At the conclusion of the nurse's testimony, the Commission unanimously passed a motion which provided, inter alia, that "the insurance premium be comparable to the bargaining unit-approved insurance premium payment for all Civil Service employees."
The Commission then issued an order dated April 6, 2000. The order states in pertinent part:
In review of the testimony heard and evidence presented, the Commission finds that a disparate situation does exist with regards to Douglas County's enhanced payment of health insurance benefits relative to bargaining and nonbargaining unit employees. The Commission finds that it has the proper authority to provide for equitable treatment for all employees under it's [sic] jurisdiction and that such disparate treatment is contrary to the Commission's rules.
....
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that all non-bargaining employees under the jurisdiction of the Douglas County Civil Service Commission shall receive the enhanced health insurance payment plan currently provided to those employees covered by the extant labor agreement between the Douglas County Board of Commissioners and the Health Department Employee's Association which became effective January 1, 2000.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that the Board of County Commissioners has until July 1, 2000, to implement this plan and to provide for any possible retroactive payments to the plan's participants.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED that the Douglas County Board of Commissioners shall timely effectuate and comply with the terms of this Order.
An appeal from a final Order of the Commission shall be in a manner provided by Nebraska Revised Statutes § 25-1901 to § 25-1908.
On May 5, 2000, the Board filed a petition in error pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-1901 (Cum.Supp.2000) in the Douglas County District Court. The Board asked the court to set aside and reverse the April 6 decision of the Commission because it exceeded the statutory authority granted to the Commission.
A hearing was held in the district court on September 12, 2000. At that hearing, the Commission argued the district court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the April 6 order was not a
In its order filed October 6, 2000, the district court first determined that the April 6 order was appealable pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 25-1901 to 25-1908 (Reissue 1995 & Cum.Supp.2000). The court found that the Commission "exercised a judicial function by receiving evidence and hearing arguments by the R.N.s on their appeal concerning allegedly disparate treatment practiced by the Douglas County Board." Furthermore, the district court noted that the April 6 order itself "Ordered, Decreed and Adjudged" that "`[a]n appeal from a final Order of the Commission shall be in a manner provided by Nebraska Revised Statutes § 25-1901 to § 25-1908.'"
The district court then determined that (1) the Commission lacked the statutory authority to hear the nurses' appeal pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 23-2510 (Reissue 1997), (2) the Commission lacked the statutory authority to order the Board to increase its portion of nonbargaining unit employee insurance premium payments pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 23-2507 (Reissue 1997), and (3) the April 6 order was in excess of the Commission's authority pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 23-2508 (Reissue 1997). The court then vacated the Commission's order.
The Commission appealed and filed a petition to bypass the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which this court granted.
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
The Commission asserts, rephrased, that the district court erred in (1) finding the petition in error statutes were the proper vehicle to bring the appeal, (2) failing to find that the petitioners in error lacked standing to bring the appeal, and (3)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE APPLICATION OF LINCOLN ELEC. SYSTEM, S-01-286.
...not involve a factual dispute is determined by an appellate court as a matter of law. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Civil Serv. Comm., 263 Neb. 544, 641 N.W.2d 55 (2002); Gernstein v. Lake, 259 Neb. 479, 610 N.W.2d 714 IV. ANALYSIS 1. MOOTNESS AND PREEMPTION The question of law presented by......
-
Billingsley v. BFM LIQUOR MANAGEMENT, INC., S-01-171.
...641 N.W.2d 62 (2002). Similarly, statutory interpretation presents a question of law. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Civil Serv. Comm., 263 Neb. 544, 641 N.W.2d 55 (2002). On questions of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by t......
-
McNally v. City of Omaha, S-05-1022.
...N.W.2d 25 (2005); Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943, 627 N.W.2d 118 (2001). 2. See, Douglas Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Civil Serv. Comm., 263 Neb. 544, 641 N.W.2d 55 (2002); Abboud v. Lakeview, Inc., 237 Neb. 326, 466 N.W.2d 442 (1991); Andrews v. City of Fremont, 213 Neb. 148, 328 N.W.2d 1......
-
Tyma v. Tyma, S-01-267.
...to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Comrs. v. Civil Serv. Comm., 263 Neb. 544, 641 N.W.2d 55 ANALYSIS Valuation of Marital Estate. Richard argues that the district court abused its discretion by using the date the part......