Omaha Police Union Local 101 v. City of Omaha

 Omaha Police UnionLocal 101, IUPA, AFL-CIO, also known as Omaha Police Officers Association, appellee and cross-appellant, v. City ofOmaha, a municipal corporation, appellant and cross-appellee. 

___ N.W.2d ___ 

Filed December 31, 2015. No. S-14-1153. 

NATURE OF CASE

The appellee and cross-appellant, the Omaha Police Union Local 101, IUPA, AFL-CIO, also known as the Omaha Police Officers Association (Union), filed a declaratory judgment action against the appellant and cross-appellee, City of Omaha (City). The Union requested the district court declare that the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and the City had rolled over to the 2014 calendar year. The Union claimed that the City did not timely provide written notice of its intent to negotiate or modify the terms of the contract for 2014. The City argued that the Union’s action was barred by the doctrines of waiver and equitable estoppel. It claimed written notice was waived by the Union or the Union was estopped from asserting that the City was required to give written notice of its intent to negotiate changes to the contract. We affirm the order of the district court granting declaratory judgment to the Union and denying its request for attorney fees.

FACTS

The parties entered into an agreement which was to remain in effect from December 14, 2008, until December 21, 2013 (Contract). The Contract contained an “evergreen clause” (Article 47), which provided for an automatic extension of the Contract if neither party notified the other of a desire to modify or renegotiate any portion thereof. Article 47 provided:

This Agreement shall be and shall remain in full force and effect from and after . . . December 14, 2008, until . . . December 21, 2013, and thereafter for successive one (1) calendar year periods, unless one of the parties hereto on or before April 1st of any such year shall notify the other party hereto in writing of its desire to modify the same, or any part thereof.

Neither party disputes that Article 47 required written notice of intent to negotiate changes by April 1, 2014, and that notice was not provided by either party by that date. Consequently, whether the district court erred in granting declaratory relief depends upon whether it erred in rejecting the City’s equitable defenses.

- 384 -

Nebraska Advance Sheets

292 Nebraska Reports

OMAHA POLICE UNION LOCAL 101 v. CITY OF OMAHA

Cite as 292 Neb. 381

OMAHA POLICE UNION LOCAL 101 v. CITY OF OMAHA

Cite as 292 Neb. 381

Attorney Fees

Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the parties to pay their own attorney fees. The City failed to meet its burden of showing its equitable defenses. But the City’s interpretation of the Union’s conduct was not so wholly without merit as to be frivolous or in bad faith.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, we affirm the order of the district court granting declaratory judgment to the Union and ordering the parties to pay their own attorney fees.

Affirmed.