Opinion ID: 1989368
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: county budget evidence

Text: To support its contention that budgetary considerations were not a valid reason for the employment terminations, the Union offered evidence showing that there were sufficient funds to retain the discharged employees. The CIR found that Stoll made the statement that the County had the funds to continue to employ the discharged employees and also found that County Commissioner Arlen G. Ross stated twice during CBA negotiations that money was not a problem. The County submitted evidence indicating that the CBA would create budgetary problems. The CIR determined that the County's layoffs of the discharged employees did not violate § 48-824(2)(a), as the layoffs were consistent with the position maintained by Otoe County during negotiations and do not appear to be related to the union organizing effort.... As to § 48-824(2)(c), the CIR concluded that the Union failed to make a prima facie case in that it did not present evidence sufficient to support an inference that the protected conduct was a motivating factor in the County's decision to lay off the discharged employees. It determined that the layoffs did not violate § 48-824(2)(c), because the layoffs did not occur around the time of the union organizing effort, ... the County Commissioners were unaware of much of the protected activity of the discharged employees, and the discharged employees' evaluations indicated that their job performance was either not acceptable or marginally acceptable. The CIR followed a similar analysis in declining to find a violation of § 48-824(2)(d). The Union appeals.