Opinion ID: 1996299
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: direct dealing

Text: In its third assignment of error, the District argues the CIR erred in finding that it had engaged in direct dealing in violation of § 48-824(2)(a) and (e). For the sake of completeness, we note that the District makes no specific argument with respect to the CIR's findings (1) that the District's actions were direct dealing in violation of § 48-824(2)(f) or (2) that the District's unilateral actions in paying the signing bonuses violated the collective bargaining agreement and § 48-824(2)(a) and (e). We therefore limit our analysis to the specific arguments of the District. Section 48-824(2)(a) and (e) states: It is a prohibited practice for any employer or the employer's negotiator to: (a) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of rights granted by the Industrial Relations Act; .... (e) Refuse to negotiate collectively with representatives of collective-bargaining agents as required by the Industrial Relations Act. Section 48-824(2)(a) and (e) are similar to § 8(a)(1) and (5) of the NLRA, codified at 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and (5) (2000). As recognized earlier, we have said that cases decided under the NLRA can be helpful in interpreting the NIRA, but are not binding. See, Nebraska Pub. Emp. v. Otoe Cty., 257 Neb. 50, 595 N.W.2d 237 (1999); University Police Officers Union v. University of Nebraska, 203 Neb. 4, 277 N.W.2d 529 (1979). We therefore look to federal decisions interpreting § 8(a)(1) and (5) for guidance. The District cites Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 332 N.L.R.B. No. 106, 2000 WL 1699007 (Oct. 31, 2000), as setting forth the appropriate analysis when evaluating a claim of direct dealing. The analysis employed in Permanente Medical Group, Inc. has been applied to labor relations cases by the U.S. Supreme Court. See Medo Corp. v. Labor Board, 321 U.S. 678, 64 S.Ct. 830, 88 L.Ed. 1007 (1944). We agree with the District that Permanente Medical Group, Inc. provides an appropriate test and proceed to evaluate the District's claim under its holding. In Permanente Medical Group, Inc., supra, the NLRB identifies the elements of direct dealing as follows: (1) The employer was communicating directly with unionrepresented employees; (2) the discussion was for the purpose of establishing wages, hours, and terms and conditions of employment or undercutting the collective bargaining unit's role in bargaining; and (3) such communication was made to the exclusion of the collective bargaining unit. We will discuss these elements below.