International Broth. of Elec. Workers Local 244 v. Lincoln Elec. System
| Decision Date | 25 April 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 85-004,85-004 |
| Citation | 222 Neb. 550,385 N.W.2d 433 |
| Parties | INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS LOCAL 244, Appellant, v. LINCOLN ELECTRIC SYSTEM, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Commission of Industrial Relations: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a decision of the Commission of Industrial Relations, this court will consider whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether the commission acted within the scope of its statutory authority, and whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
2. Administrative Law: Evidence: Witnesses: Appeal and Error. It is not for the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are for the administrative agency as a trier of fact.
3. Labor and Labor Relations: Employer and Employee. Supervisory personnel cannot be represented in the same bargaining unit with rank and file employees.
4. Labor and Labor Relations: Employer and Employee. Supervisory or managerial personnel may not retain the same bargaining agent as the employees' union because that would be tantamount to permitting them to enter the same bargaining unit.
5. Labor and Labor Relations: Employer and Employee. The mere fact that each local union can be traced back to a common international union will not be enough to show that the locals are affiliated with each other. There must be a positive showing that the national has authority and power to exercise control over both locals and that it is actually exercising that control.
David D. Weinberg, of Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C., Omaha, for appellant.
Douglas L. Curry, Soren S. Jensen, and J. Russell Derr, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 244 (Local 244) filed a petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR) in June of 1984 seeking recognition and representation of employees in a bargaining unit consisting of crew foremen employed in the operations department of respondent-appellee, Lincoln Electric System (LES). LES answered, stating that the bargaining unit was inappropriate because the title of crew foreman is not an appropriate unit for bargaining and if Local 244 became certified, the result would be that supervisory and nonsupervisory employees would be part of the same bargaining unit. Trial was held and the CIR dismissed Local 244's petition and request for an election. The CIR concluded that since both locals were affiliated with the same international union, a conflict of interest could result.
The issue on appeal in this case is whether the CIR erred in dismissing appellant's petition because supervisors and the employees they supervise, represented by another union, belong to the same international union and the international union's control over the two unions creates the possibility of a conflict of interest and prevents the two local unions from acting independently in collective bargaining relationships with the same employer.
In reviewing a decision of the CIR, this court will consider whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence, whether the CIR acted within the scope of its statutory authority, and whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. City of Omaha v. Omaha Police Union Local 101, ante 222 Neb. p. 197, 382 N.W.2d 613 (1986). It is not for the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony are for the administrative agency as a trier of fact. In re Appeal of Levos, 214 Neb. 507, 335 N.W.2d 262 (1983).
Crew foreman and crew leaders employed in the operations department of LES were formerly members of a bargaining unit represented by Local 1536 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (Local 1536). Local 1536 also represented the employees these crew foremen and crew leaders supervised, and LES challenged the status of the supervisors on the ground that a collective bargaining unit could not legally include both supervisory and nonsupervisory employees. This issue was resolved by this court in December of 1983 when it was decided that Local 1536 could not represent both the rank and file employees and their supervisors. IBEW Local 1536 v. Lincoln Elec....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Douglas County Health Dept. Employees Ass'n v. Douglas County
...the scope of its statutory authority, and whether its action was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. IBEW Local 244 v. Lincoln Elec. Sys., 222 Neb. 550, 385 N.W.2d 433 (1986). It is not for the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in the evidence. Credibility of witnesses and the weight t......
-
Olson v. City of Omaha, 87-229
...as the trier of fact; it is not the province of the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts in the evidence. IBEW Local 244 v. Lincoln Elec. Sys., 222 Neb. 550, 385 N.W.2d 433 (1986). At the hearing, Infantino testified he had at least three meetings with Olson prior to the Howell arrest. In one......
-
City of Kearney v. Johnson
... ... See Farnham v. City of Lincoln, 75 Neb. 502, 106 N.W. 666 (1906). In ion Workers of America, AFL-CIO v. City of Hastings, 198 Neb ... ...