The following FY2023-2024 State Personnel Board Decisions regarding employee grievances have been summarized for informational use only.
Laura Sanders v. Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services Appeal (NAPE)
During a weekend in January 2023, the Appellant was “on call.” While “on call,” the Appellant transitioned to active work status several times. She was not required to return to the office; she worked remotely from home. The Appellant was paid her regular wages for actual time worked and was paid 12% of her regular compensation while in an “on call/standby” status. The Appellant filed a grievance arguing Section 7.8 of the Labor Contract guaranteed her a minimum of two hours each time she transitioned to active work status. The State Personnel Board designated Melanie J. Whittamore-Mantzios as Hearing Officer, and a hearing was held in accordance with the with 2023-2025 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract. The rules of evidence were not invoked.
The Board adopted the Findings of Fact but rejected the Conclusions of Law recommended by the Hearing Officer. The Board found that an on call/standby employee cannot be “called back for duty” simply by transitioning to active work status. The Board noted that when Sections 7.8 and 7.9 are read together, the phrase “called back for duty” clearly means an employee who is “called back” to their office or work site. Therefore, Section 7.8’s guaranteed two-hour work minimum is only paid to on call/standby or off-duty employees who return to the “employer’s premises.”
The State Personnel Board denied the appeal.
Matthew Sutter v. Nebraska State Patrol Appeal (Rules)
The Appellant filed a grievance when he was disciplined in the form of termination. The discipline was based on allegations that the Appellant disclosed confidential information to the media. The State Personnel Board designated Jim R. Titus as Hearing Officer, and a hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules.
The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant did disclose confidential information the media in violation of agency policy, which warns that such actions may result in dismissal. The Hearing Officer found that the termination was taken in good faith and for cause. Therefore, the Hearing Officer recommended that the State Personnel Board deny the grievance appeal.
The State Personnel Board affirmed the recommendation.
Sarah Cooper v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeal (Rules)
The Appellant filed a grievance after she was demoted based on allegations that she made a statement which violated the Workplace Code of Ethics policy and that she did not follow instructions to maintain confidentiality during a workplace harassment investigation. The State Personnel Board designated LeRoy W. Sievers as Hearing Officer. A Hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules.
The Appellant does not dispute making the statement or violating the confidentiality instructions. However, the Appellant argues that progressive discipline was not followed. The Hearing Officer found that the Respondent did not violate the Personnel Rules in relation to progressive discipline.
The State Personnel Board affirmed the recommendation which denied the appeal.
Laura Steele-Leahy v. Nebraska Department Revenue (NAPE)
The Appellant filed a grievance arguing Article 19.1 was violated when the Department of Revenue did not reclassify her job classification. The Department of Revenue forwarded the Appellant’s request for reclassification to the Department of Administrative Services. The reclassification request was reviewed and ultimately denied by the Department of Administrative Services. The Department of Revenue argued they could not override the Department of Administrative Service’s decision. The State Personnel Board designated Robert F. Bartle as Hearing Officer, and the hearing was held in accordance with 2021-2023 State of Nebraska and NAPE/AFSCME Labor Contract
The Hearing Officer found that the decision of the Department of Administrative Services was likely proper in this case. “The decision of an agency regarding the interpretation of its own regulations, such as the determinations regarding classifications, should be afforded great deference unless there is plain error….” The Hearing Officer did not find any error in the decision given by the Department of Administrative Services.
The State Personnel Board denied the appeal.
Christos Mantzios v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services Appeal (Rules)
The Appellant filed a grievance when he was disciplined in the form of termination. The discipline was based on allegations that the Appellant retaliated against a coworker when he did not assign the coworker a work assignment and made improper statements. The State Personnel Board designated Jeanelle R. Lust as Hearing Officer, and a hearing was held in accordance with the Nebraska Classified System Personnel Rules.
The Hearing Officer found that the Appellant’s decision was not retaliatory and the statements were not improper. The Hearing Officer found no just cause for discipline exists and recommended that the Appellant be reinstated with back pay.
The State Personnel Board affirmed the recommendation.