Opinion ID: 1996299
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Signing Bonus as Wage, Hour, or Condition of Employment

Text: The District next argues that it did not engage in direct dealing because a signing bonus is not a wage, hour, or condition of employment. [W]ages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment or any question arising thereunder are considered to be mandatory subjects of bargaining under the NIRA. See § 48-816(1). The CIR found that the bonus paid to Hintz was part of his wages, and thus a mandatory subject of bargaining. The District relies on N.L.R.B. v. Wonder State Manufacturing Company, 344 F.2d 210 (8th Cir.1965), to support its contention that bonuses are not the subject of mandatory bargaining. In Wonder State Manufacturing Company, the Eighth Circuit found that an employer was permitted to unilaterally withdraw a Christmas bonus over a union objection that the bonus was a subject of mandatory bargaining. The court emphasized that there had been no regularity in the paying of the bonus by the employer, there was no uniformity in how the employer determined the amount of the bonus, the bonus was not tied to the employee's usual remuneration, and whether a bonus was paid was tied to the financial condition and ability of the employer to afford to pay such a bonus. The District contends those same factors are present in this case: The District had never before paid any type of signing bonus. There was no uniform bonus amount, because this was a one-time situation. Finally, the bonus was paid to Hintz because the District faced an exigency that demanded unique action. Brief for appellant at 27. However, the court in N.L.R.B. v. Wonder State Manufacturing Company, 344 F.2d at 213, explained: The rule is that gifts per sepayments which do not constitute compensation for servicesare not terms and conditions of employment, and an employer can make or decline to make such payments as he pleases, but if the gifts or bonuses are so tied to the remuneration which employees received for their work that they were in fact a part of it, they are in reality wages and within the statute. (Emphasis supplied.) See, also, N.L.R.B. v. Electric Steam Radiator Corporation, 321 F.2d 733 (6th Cir.1963) (containing similar language). In this case, the CIR found that [a]fter the collective bargaining agreement was entered, the District again met with Mr. Hintz on August 30, 2000 to set forth in writing that his annual compensation would total $24,000, including a `signing bonus' of $2,350. It is undisputed in the record that the `signing bonus' was to be paid to Hintz in 12 equal installments, the sum of which, when added to his base salary of $21,650, totaled $24,000. The CIR's finding that the bonus was a wage is, considering the whole record, supported by a preponderance of the competent evidence, is within the scope of the CIR's statutory authority, and is not contrary to law. See, Nebraska Pub. Emp. v. Otoe Cty., 257 Neb. 50, 595 N.W.2d 237 (1999); § 48-825(4). The District's third assignment of error is without merit.