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.
Van Biggerstaff #4 v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 11.3.2, arguing that the agency violated the Labor contract by not providing him a pay increase for satisfactory performance because of his disciplinary record from prior the year. 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 denying the merit increase is closely associated with discipline and Respondent failed to establish just cause to deny the Appellant the step in pay. The Respondent was ordered to pay Appellant back pay from July 1, 2024 in the amount equal to the difference between the pay he received and the pay he would have received had he been given his pay step raise on that date. The grievance was sustained.
Sasha Reeks #3 v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1, and 10.2. after being terminated. 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 the Respondent failed to establish just cause to relieve Appellant from her duties and terminate her employment under Article 3.7. The agency failed to make an attempt to accommodate Appellant’s disability. The Arbitrator sustained the grievance and ordered that the termination be removed and reinstated to her position as a Behavior Health Caseworker along with back pay.
Van Biggerstaff #3 v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1 after receiving a reduction in pay based on allegations that he was in an inattentive state. 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 discipline was not progressive, based on an analysis of the agency’s history of imposing discipline for similar offenses. The discipline must be consistent with other penalties for similar offenses, under similar circumstances. The Arbitrator ordered the discipline to be vacated from Appellant’s record along with back pay and benefits.
Joshua Decker v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1, 10.2. and M.15.3 after being suspended for 20 days without pay due to a positive drug test. J.E (Jim) Nash 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 discipline was not correctly followed because the Appellant was not allowed to present mitigating evidence or extenuating circumstances. The Arbitrator ordered the discipline to be vacated from Appellant’s record along with back pay, benefits and seniority rights restored.
Dana Dormer v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1, 10.2. and M.15.3 after being suspended for 20 days without pay due to a positive drug test. J.E (Jim) Nash 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 discipline was not correctly followed because the Appellant was not allowed to present mitigating evidence or extenuating circumstances. The Arbitrator ordered the discipline to be vacated from Appellant’s record along with back pay, benefits and seniority rights restored.
Michael Reich v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (FOP 88)
The Appellant filed a grievance under Article 10.1, 10.2. and M.15.3 after being suspended for 20 days without pay due to a positive drug test. J.E (Jim) Nash 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 discipline was not correctly followed because the Appellant was not allowed to present mitigating evidence or extenuating circumstances. The Arbitrator ordered the discipline to be vacated from Appellant’s record along with back pay, benefits and seniority rights restored.