The following FY2020-2021 State Personnel Board Decisions regarding employee grievances have been summarized for informational use only.
Brad Henrie v. Nebraska Board of Parole (Rules)
The Appellant filed a grievance after the Nebraska Board of Parole disciplined him in the form of termination. The Notice of Allegations alleged that the Appellant violated several sections of the DPS Searches Protocol. Subsequently, the Notice of Discipline included a new allegation that Mr. Henrie violated DPS Searches Protocol by circumventing law enforcement warrant protocols. The State Personnel Board designated Melanie J. Whittamore-Mantzios as Hearing Officer, and the hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules. The rules of evidence were not invoked.
The Hearing Officer noted that the Board of Parole violated Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermille and 273 NAC § 14-004.01A by failing to include in the Notice of Allegations the allegation that Mr. Henrie authorized a search that circumvented the law enforcement warrant protocol. Including the violation in the Notice of Discipline did not cure this defect nor does any post-termination process cure the defect.
The Hearing Officer noted that there was no evidence that Mr. Henrie violated any section of the DPS Searches protocol, including the section regarding searches that circumvent the law enforcement warrant protocol. The hearing officer recommended that Mr. Henrie be reinstated to his position, and that the Nebraska Parole Board pay Mr. Henrie back pay and benefits; remove the Notice of Allegations and Notice of Discipline from his personnel file; and dismiss the Notice of Allegations.
The State Personnel Board adopted the recommendation.
Ryan Pavlish v. Nebraska State Patrol Appeal (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance after he was terminated based on an allegation that he lacked the level of competence required for his position. The State Personnel Board designated Melanie J. Whittamore-Mantzios as Hearing Officer, and the hearing was held in accordance with the 2019-2021 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract. The rules of evidence were not invoked.
Mr. Pavlish argued that the Notice of Allegations failed to contain the date or any details of the alleged violations as required by Article 10.1 of the NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract. As a result, Mr. Pavlish could not reasonably defend himself at the pre-disciplinary meeting. The respondent argued that Mr. Pavlish had been diligently informed of the allegations via PIPs and SOFs. The Hearing Officer found that the Notice of Allegations received by Mr. Pavlish does not comply with Article 10.1 because it fails to include the specific details involved and the dates the violations occurred. The Hearing Officer recommended that the termination be reversed, and that Mr. Pavlish be reinstated to his position with backpay.
The State Personnel Board adopted the recommendation.
Scott Mollring v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Appeal (SCATA)
The Appellant filed a grievance after he was terminated. The Appellant claimed that, at the time of his termination, he was no longer within the probation period and was therefore denied due process and his termination was improper. The Respondent argued that the Appellant was terminated while he was on original probation, and the termination was valid. The State Personnel Board designated LeRoy W. Sievers as Hearing Officer, and the hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules. The rules of evidence were not invoked.
Article 6.2 of the SCATA Labor Contact and Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 79-845 state that teachers shall be on a probationary period during the first two years of employment and may be terminated during the probationary period without cause. The Appellant argued that the “two years” mean two Individual Teacher Contract years; the Respondent argues it means two calendar years. The Hearing Officer found that the pain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. Sec. 79-845 is that the probationary period lasts for the first two calendar years. The Appellant’s termination occurred within his first two years of employment and was thus valid.
The State Personnel Board adopted the recommendation and denied the appeal.
Mr. Mollring appealed the State Personnel Board decision to District Court. The District Court interpreted the term “first two years of employment” to mean the first two calendar years or 24 months of employment. Therefore, the District Court affirmed the State Personnel Board’s decision, which denied the appeal.
Julie Burt v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeal (Rules)
The Appellant filed a grievance after the Respondent disciplined her in the form of a written warning. The discipline was based on an allegation that the Appellant failed to verify or report information to her supervisor. The State Personnel Board designated Sean Davis as Hearing Officer, and the hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules. The rules of evidence were not invoked.
The Hearing Officer found that there was just cause for discipline and that a Letter of Warning was appropriate and employed progressive discipline.
The State Personnel Board affirmed the recommendation and denied the appeal.
Ronald Thompson v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Service Appeal (Rules)
The Appellant filed a grievance regarding a disciplinary action taken. However, the Respondent argued that the Step 3 filing did not comply with the requirements found in Chapter 15 of the Personnel Rules. The Appellant argued that the Respondent did not comply with their requirements at Step 1. The State Personnel Board designated Sean Davis as Hearing Officer, and the hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules. The rules of evidence were not invoked.
The Hearing Officer stated that any failing on the part of the Respondent at Step 1 does not have as a remedy ignoring the other requirements in the grievance process. The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant did not meet the requirements for filing a grievable appeal, therefore there was no authority for the case to proceed.
The State Personnel Board adopted the recommendation; the appeal was denied.