Omaha Police Union Local 101 IUPA v. City of Omaha
Nebraska Supreme Court
736 N.W.2d 375, 274 Neb. 70 (2007)
- Written by Mike Begovic, JD
Facts
Nebraska’s Industrial Relations Act (the act) protected public employees’ rights to organize and form unions. During a meeting of the Omaha Police Union (the union) (plaintiffs), Omaha Police Department (OPD) Sergeant Timothy Anderson, president of the union, addressed how 911 emergency-dispatch service times were calculated. Anderson called the methodology misleading. OPD Chief Thomas Warren heard about the criticism and initiated an Internal Affairs (IA) investigation, which found no wrongdoing. In response, OPD Officer Kevin Housh wrote an article in a union newspaper widely distributed to members, criticizing Warren and OPD using harsh language. Housh stated that OPD acted like petty criminals. Warren initiated an IA investigation of Housh, claiming Housh’s article and the language he employed violated OPD rules of conduct. IA determined that the unprofessional-conduct allegation should be sustained, and Warren terminated Housh’s employment. The union appealed to the City Personnel Board. The city (defendants) and union reached an agreement to reinstate Housh after a 20-day suspension. The union and Warren met but were unable to resolve their differences. The union filed a petition with the Commission of Industrial Relations (CIR), claiming that OPD’s actions had chilled other union members’ expressions of opinions, amounting to a prohibited labor practice under the act. The union alleged that OPD interfered with, restrained, and coerced union members from the exercise of their rights under the act. CIR issued a written order granting a portion of the relief sought by the union, finding that OPD’s actions did have a chilling effect and that Housh’s article was a protected union activity. CIR relied on federal labor law for guidance, concluding that an employee only loses protection for speech that is deliberately or recklessly untrue. CIR ordered OPD not to interfere with statements unless this standard was met. The city appealed, challenging whether this was the correct standard to apply.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stephan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.