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.
Deborah Gans v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (NAPE/AFSCME)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1 after receiving a Notice of Discipline that she was to be suspended for one day without pay based on the allegations that she did not adhere to NDCS policy when she raised her arm and placed her palm up in the direction of an incarcerated individual. Amanda Palmer was selected as the Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME.
The Arbitrator found that disciplinary action was warranted, but that suspension was not appropriate, considering the Appellant’s discipline history. The Arbitrator ordered NDCS to lower the discipline to a written warning and to issue payment for wages lost during the one-day suspension and lost holiday pay.
The Grievance was sustained in part.
Rodney Williams v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Articles 1.6, 1.7, 15.2 and Appendix M.4.2 after Appellant found out that he was not awarded a position for Commons Corporal and a less senior employee was placed in the role. Appellant also claimed that the agency discriminated against him when he was not awarded the position. Wendy A. Wussow was selected as the Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and FOP 88.
The Arbitrator found that the Appellant should be awarded the Commons Corporal position because there were no specialized skills or requirements for the position and he was the senior employee. However, the Arbitrator made no finding of discrimination or that Appellant was not properly notified when he was not selected.
The Grievance was sustained in part.
Jennifer Larson v Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NAPE/AFSCME)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1 after receiving a written warning based on the allegations that she did not adhere to DHHS values of positive and constructive attitude and actions, professional composure, effective interpersonal relationships and productive communication. Robert F. Bartle was selected as the Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME.
The Arbitrator found that no administrative violation or misconduct occurred under the Department’s own policy and guidelines relative to the investigation. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance and ordered that the discipline be vacated.
Tania Langan v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1 and 10.2 after receiving a Statement of Charges alleging violations of workplace harassment between two team members. J. L. Spray was selected as the Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and the FOP 88.
The Arbitrator found that the agency did not establish just cause for discipline. Appellant’s comments were made during a confidential investigation and were solicited by the agency. The only comment that could be considered offensive was a comment that the coworker was “annoying,” but that does not constitute harassment based on race, gender, religion, or sex. The Arbitrator order the discipline to be vacated from Appellant’s record.
Anthony Fischer v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1 and 10.2 after receiving a Notice of Discipline, terminating his employment for making threats against a coworker. Jim R. Titus was selected as Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and the FOP 88.
The Arbitrator ruled that the agency did not follow progressive discipline when it terminated Appellant’s employment. Although the interaction between Appellant and his coworker was unprofessional and did not foster appropriate working relationships, it did not constitute a real threat of assault or harm. The Arbitrator ordered that the Appellant be reinstated and receive backpay for the time he was improperly terminated.
Patricia French v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (NAPE/AFSCME)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 26.2 and 26.3, alleging that the agency did not provide her SMART goals that were measurable or attainable, resulting in an unsatisfactory performance evaluation. Neely Fedde Salem was selected as Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME.
The Arbitrator dismissed the appeal and found that the grievance did not meet the grievability requirements found in Article 26.5. Appellant did not have two consecutive years of unsatisfactory performance reviews. Although Article 26.5 does not preclude a grievance regarding Articles 26.2 and 26.3, such grievances must be made timely and the remedy must correlate with the grieved action.
Derrick Brinkmeier #1 v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Articles 10.1 and 10.2 after receiving a Notice of Discipline demoting him from a Corrections Sergeant to Corrections Corporal due to substantiated allegations of workplace harassment. Jim R. Titus was selected as Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 Labor Contract between the State of Nebraska and the FOP 88.
The Arbitrator dismissed the appeal and found that the allegations against Appellant were substantiated and discipline was appropriate. Appellant’s supervisory role and the severity of the conduct show that the agency employed progressive discipline.
Derrick Brinkmeier #2 v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Articles 10.1 and 10.2 of the labor contract after receiving a Notice of Discipline terminating his employment due to substantiated allegations of workplace harassment. Jim R. Titus was selected as Arbitrator and a hearing was held in accordance with the 2023-2025 State of Nebraska and the FOP 88 Labor Contract.
The Arbitrator found that the conduct of the Appellant was unprofessional toward a co-worker, but did not constitute workplace harassment. The agency did not exercise progressive discipline when it terminated his employment. The Arbitrator ordered reinstatement to the position of corporal, but did not award back pay.