(1) It is a prohibited practice
for any public employer, public employee, public employee organization,
or collective-bargaining agent to refuse to negotiate in good faith with respect
to mandatory topics of bargaining.
(2) It is a prohibited practice for any public employer or the public employer's negotiator to:
(a) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the
exercise of rights granted by the Industrial Relations Act;
(b) Dominate or interfere in the administration of any public employee organization;
(c) Encourage or discourage membership in any public employee organization,
committee, or association by discrimination in hiring, tenure, or other terms
or conditions of employment;
(d) Discharge or discriminate against a
public employee because the employee has filed an affidavit, petition,
or complaint or given any information or testimony under the Industrial Relations
Act or because the public employee
has formed, joined, or chosen to be represented by any public employee organization;
(e) Refuse to negotiate collectively with representatives
of collective-bargaining agents as required by the Industrial Relations Act;
(f) Deny the rights accompanying certification or recognition
granted by the Industrial Relations Act; and
(g) Refuse to participate in good faith in any impasse procedures
for public employees
as set forth in the Industrial Relations Act.
(3) It is a prohibited practice for any public employee, public employee organization, or bargaining
unit or for any representative or collective-bargaining agent to:
(a) Interfere with, restrain, coerce, or harass any public employee with respect
to any of the public employee's
rights granted by the Industrial Relations Act;
(b) Interfere with, restrain, or coerce a
public employer with respect to rights granted by the Industrial
Relations Act or with respect to selecting a representative for the purposes
of negotiating collectively on the adjustment of grievances;
(c) Refuse to bargain collectively with a
public employer as required by the Industrial Relations Act; and
(d) Refuse to participate in good faith in any impasse procedures
for public employees
as set forth in the Industrial Relations Act.
(4) The expressing of any view, argument, or opinion, or
the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual
form, is not evidence of any unfair labor practice under any of the provisions
of the Industrial Relations Act if such expression contains no threat of reprisal
or force or promise of benefit.
Notes of Decisions
Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe Cnty., 595 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1999).
· cites it 63× “The petition alleged that the termination of the three Union members’ employment by appellee, Otoe County (County), shortly after a collective bargaining agreement was signed was a prohibited practice, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(a) through (d) (Reissue 1998) of…”
South Sioux City Ed. v. Dakota Sch. Dist., 772 N.W.2d 564 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 12× “The issues before the CIR were (1) whether the CIR had jurisdiction, (2) *569 whether the District committed a prohibited labor practice in violation of § 48-824 by failing to compensate an employee in accordance with the 2007-08 negotiated Agreement, (3) whether the petition…”
Lamb v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 36, 293 Neb. 138 (Neb. 2016).
· cites it 4× “[5] We agree with Lamb that the CIR has no jurisdiction over breach of contract claims.6 But Lamb does not allege only a claim for a breach of contract.”
Manning v. Dakota Cnty. Sch. Dist., 782 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2010).
· cites it 2× “The South Sioux City Education Association brought an action before the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR), which found that the act of treating Manning as a substitute teacher rather than as a certificated employee was a prohibited practice under Neb.Rev.Stat. §…”
Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha, 736 N.W.2d 375 (Neb. 2007).
· cites it 7× “5 In an appeal from a CIR order regarding prohibited practices stated in § 48-824, an appellate court will affirm a factual finding of the CIR, if, considering the whole record, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by a preponderance of the…”
Gernstein v. Lake, 610 N.W.2d 714 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 2× “2d 237 (1999) (concluding that since interpretation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(c) (Reissue 1998), which was similar to § 8(a)(3) of National Labor Relations Act, was case of first impression, it was appropriate to look to federal decisions interpreting § 8(a)(3) for…”
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of York, 309 Neb. 359 (Neb. 2021).
· cites it 9× “359 member regarding residency; (5) found York did not commit a prohibited labor practice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (1) and (2)(a), (e), and (f ) (Cum.”
Sch. Dist. of Seward Educ. Ass'n v. Sch. Dist., 199 N.W.2d 752 (Neb. 1972).
· cites it 2× “Sections 48-824 to 48-836, R.R.S.1943, covered arbitration for cities of more than 5,000, or a city under civil service, but any decision or report would be advisory only.”
Davis v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 8, 731 N.W.2d 901 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 18× “Appellees alleged in their complaint that the FOP had engaged in prohibited practices in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-824 (Reissue 2004), including refusing to fairly bargain with the employer, Douglas County, to seek rule changes concerning (1) using only female guards to…”
Pub. Assn. of Govt. Empl. v. City of Lincoln, 24 Neb. Ct. App. 703 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 2× “703 of § 48-824(1) and (2)(e) based upon its “unilateral change to, and refusal to negotiate in good faith over, a mandatory subject of bargaining.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(1) — 7 cases
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of York, 309 Neb. 359 (Neb. 2021).
“359 member regarding residency; (5) found York did not commit a prohibited labor practice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (1) and (2)(a), (e), and (f ) (Cum.”
Pub. Assn. of Govt. Empl. v. City of Lincoln, 24 Neb. Ct. App. 703 (Neb. Ct. App. 2017).
“703 of § 48-824(1) and (2)(e) based upon its “unilateral change to, and refusal to negotiate in good faith over, a mandatory subject of bargaining.”
Davis v. Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 8, 731 N.W.2d 901 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007).
“Appellees alleged in their complaint that the FOP had engaged in prohibited practices in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-824 (Reissue 2004), including refusing to fairly bargain with the employer, Douglas County, to seek rule changes concerning (1) using only female guards to…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(2) — 5 cases
Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe Cnty., 595 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1999).
“The petition alleged that the termination of the three Union members’ employment by appellee, Otoe County (County), shortly after a collective bargaining agreement was signed was a prohibited practice, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(a) through (d) (Reissue 1998) of…”
South Sioux City Ed. v. Dakota Sch. Dist., 772 N.W.2d 564 (Neb. 2009).
“The issues before the CIR were (1) whether the CIR had jurisdiction, (2) *569 whether the District committed a prohibited labor practice in violation of § 48-824 by failing to compensate an employee in accordance with the 2007-08 negotiated Agreement, (3) whether the petition…”
Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha, 736 N.W.2d 375 (Neb. 2007).
“5 In an appeal from a CIR order regarding prohibited practices stated in § 48-824, an appellate court will affirm a factual finding of the CIR, if, considering the whole record, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by a preponderance of the…”
Fraternal Order of Police v. City of York, 309 Neb. 359 (Neb. 2021).
“359 member regarding residency; (5) found York did not commit a prohibited labor practice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (1) and (2)(a), (e), and (f ) (Cum.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(2)(a) — 6 cases
Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe Cnty., 595 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1999).
“The petition alleged that the termination of the three Union members’ employment by appellee, Otoe County (County), shortly after a collective bargaining agreement was signed was a prohibited practice, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(a) through (d) (Reissue 1998) of…”
South Sioux City Ed. v. Dakota Sch. Dist., 772 N.W.2d 564 (Neb. 2009).
“The issues before the CIR were (1) whether the CIR had jurisdiction, (2) *569 whether the District committed a prohibited labor practice in violation of § 48-824 by failing to compensate an employee in accordance with the 2007-08 negotiated Agreement, (3) whether the petition…”
Manning v. Dakota Cnty. Sch. Dist., 782 N.W.2d 1 (Neb. 2010).
“The South Sioux City Education Association brought an action before the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR), which found that the act of treating Manning as a substitute teacher rather than as a certificated employee was a prohibited practice under Neb.Rev.Stat. §…”
Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha, 736 N.W.2d 375 (Neb. 2007).
“5 In an appeal from a CIR order regarding prohibited practices stated in § 48-824, an appellate court will affirm a factual finding of the CIR, if, considering the whole record, a trier of fact could reasonably conclude that the finding is supported by a preponderance of the…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(2)(c) — 1 case
Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe Cnty., 595 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1999).
“The petition alleged that the termination of the three Union members’ employment by appellee, Otoe County (County), shortly after a collective bargaining agreement was signed was a prohibited practice, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(a) through (d) (Reissue 1998) of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(2)(d) — 1 case
Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe Cnty., 595 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1999).
“The petition alleged that the termination of the three Union members’ employment by appellee, Otoe County (County), shortly after a collective bargaining agreement was signed was a prohibited practice, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(a) through (d) (Reissue 1998) of…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(2)(f) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824(4) — 1 case
Nebraska Pub. Employees Local Union 251 v. Otoe Cnty., 595 N.W.2d 237 (Neb. 1999).
“The petition alleged that the termination of the three Union members’ employment by appellee, Otoe County (County), shortly after a collective bargaining agreement was signed was a prohibited practice, in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-824 (2)(a) through (d) (Reissue 1998) of…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.