The following Arbitration Decisions regarding employee grievances have been summarized for informational use only. Please be advised that none of the decisions in any of these cases are precedent setting.
Michael Chipman v Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP)
The Appellant filed a grievance in regard to Section 9.1 of the Labor Contract. The Appellant believed the Respondent failed to comply with posting requirements for a Corporal vacancy on third shift; an external candidate was hired from a pool applicants without the vacancy being posted. The Appellant timely filed a grievance. Shortly after the grievance was filed, NDCS posted a Corporal Bid Notice for the third shift Corrections Corporal shift vacancy at CCC-Omaha. No employees at CCC-Omaha with the rank of Corporal entered a shift bid. After the shift bid closed, NDCS did not post notice of a third shift Corrections Corporal vacancy by Internal, State Internal, or External Posting. The parties agreed to designate Jim R. Titus as Arbitrator; a hearing was held in accordance with the 2017-2019 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract.
The Arbitrator found that Article 3 of the Contract provides that the Employer possesses the right to establish classifications and to determine and implement policies for the selection and promotion of employees. Generally, Section 9.1 governs the promotion and filing of vacant positions, however it provides that exclusions to vacancy postings relating to specific agencies may be made in writing by mutual agreement. The Labor Contract contains Appendix M’s provision for the same subject matter as Section 9.1: promotions and bidding for open jobs. Therefore, the Arbitrator concluded that Appendix M contains a modification of Section 9.1. Appendix M.12.2 provides for all open post/job assignments to be posted within 10 calendar days, and be open for 7 calendar days. This was not done initially, but was then corrected to re-open the vacancy for bidding within the classification. The Arbitrator further concluded that neither M.12.2 or 9.1 specifically state that a posting with no bids must then be opened to a broader group; therefore the Article 3 provision applies to allow the Employer, in this case NDCS, to establish classification and selection policies which would apply after compliance with M.12.2. The Arbitrator found that the Respondent complied with M.12.2 and having done so, was then able to follow NDCS policies, which were also complied with. The grievance was denied.
Patricia Osterhaus v Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance in regard to section 11.12 of the Labor Contract. The Appellant claimed that she was not given an annual 2.5% raise between 2014 to present, as required by the nurse matrix. The Respondent stated that Appellant received a substantial promotion in 2015. Therefore, her wage remained the same in ensuing years because her base wage calculation, factoring in the 2.5%, resulted in a wage less than the actual wage the Appellant has received since her promotion. The parties agreed to designate Robert Bartle as Arbitrator, and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2017-2019 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract.
The Arbitrator found that the parties have each interpreted section 11.12 differently; however, it is the Appellant who bears the burden of proof and must illustrate a legal reason to overturn the agency’s decision. Additionally, the Arbitrator noted that if there is ambiguity in the Labor Contract, he cannot interpret a particular provision without considering the Contract as a whole. Given all this, the Arbitrator did not find that the Respondent’s interpretation of the Contract is clearly wrong or unreasonable. The grievance was denied.
Roger Sukup v. Nebraska Department of Transportation (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance after being disciplined in the form of a 1-day unpaid suspension and 6 months probation. He was disciplined for bringing offensive and inappropriate material into the workplace. The parties agreed to designate Hugh J. Perry as Arbitrator, and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2017-2019 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract.
The Arbitrator found the materials were brought in by the Appellant and that they were unwelcome, offensive, and derogatory in violation of sections 10.2.n, 10.2.o, and 10.2.j of the Labor Contract. The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency acted in good faith and with just cause when it disciplined Mr. Sukup, and the discipline imposed was reasonable and within the parameters of progressive discipline. The grievance was dismissed.
Roger Sukup v. Nebraska Department of Transportation, #2 (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance after being disciplined in the form of a 5-day unpaid suspension and the completion of training courses. He was disciplined for allegedly making statements while at work to his coworkers about his supervisor. The parties agreed to designate Hugh J. Perry as Arbitrator, and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2017-2019 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract.
The Arbitrator found that the record supports the conclusion that the statements were malicious rumors. By initiating or spreading the rumors, the Appellant violated sections 10.2.j, 10.2.m, 10.2.n, and 10.2.o of the Labor Contract. The Arbitrator concluded that the Agency acted in good faith and with just cause when it disciplined Mr. Sukup, and the discipline imposed was reasonable and within the parameters of progressive discipline. The grievance was dismissed.