present evidence. The parties did not file post-hearing briefs. Based
upon the entire record in this case, I make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The parties stipulated that the Lyon County Sheriff is an elected official
and that the parties negotiated a collective bargaining agreement, commencing
July 1, 1981 and ending June 30, 1982, covering the wages, hours and conditions
of employment for certain sheriff department employees. The parties further
agreed that the labor contract contained a 10 percent wage increase for dis-
patchers and a provision that deputy sheriffs would continue to receive as
salary the same percentage of the sheriff's annual salary.
The Union amended its complaint to read as follows:
Does an elected (sic) county official have the authority
to override or amend a collective bargaining agreement?
The County did not object to the Union's amendment, in lieu of the original
allegations contained in the complaint. Accordingly, the Union's amend-
ment was granted at the hearing.
The County and the Union also agreed that if the answer to the above-
question is no, any employee covered by the labor contract who did not
receive the negotiated wage rate will receive that rate retroactive to July
1, 1981. The parties further agreed that if the answer is yes, then the
Union's complaint should be dismissed, without prejudice.
The parties did not submit any evidence or testimony.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Union's original complaint alleged that the County refused to reduce
