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.
Ruth Herman v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance after she volunteered for, but was not selected for, SSP overtime shifts. Jim Zalewski was selected as Arbitrator, and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract.
The Appellant was not selected for the overtime shifts because her status to work overtime was placed on hold by the Respondent. The Respondent did this because they were unsure what pay rate should be used for the overtime assignment. The Hearing Officer found that Appellant should have been allowed to work, and the specific pay rate could have been negotiated later. Appellant should have been allowed to work in accordance with established past practice. The appeal was upheld.
Douglas Graham v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance claiming the Respondent violated Article 14.6 of the Labor Contract by requiring him to use vacation or flex time to make up hours on weeks with a state holiday. Appellant holds an overtime exempt position. His normal work schedule is four 10-hour days, Monday through Thursday (“4-10”). All teammates, including those who work 4-10s, receive eight hours of holiday pay, so employees who work 4-10s would end up with only 38 hours if they took an entire day off for the holiday. To meet their 40-hour FTE requirement, the teammates are required to make up the extra two hours, either by flexing their schedule or taking approved leave. Appellant argues that he should not have to use leave or make up the hours because he is an overtime exempt employee who does not track his time hour for hour.
Jim Titus was selected as Arbitrator, and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract. The hearing officer noted that the Labor Contract does not specifically address the issue in this case. However, NDCS’s position creates the most consistent interpretation of vacation and holiday labor contract provisions. Therefore Mr. Titus found that NDCS did not violate Article 14.6 of the Labor Contract. The appeal was denied.