Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

The State appealed a Labor Relations Board decision to reverse its dismissal of grievant John Lepore, instead suspending him for thirty days without pay. The Board agreed with the State that grievant committed serious offenses and demonstrated 'poor judgment and dishonesty related to his fitness for state employment' while serving as a juror in a capital murder trial. It concluded, however, the State could not dismiss grievant given its delay in imposing discipline and its failure to restrict grievant's job duties during the investigation into grievant's misconduct. The State argued that neither ground undermined its conclusion that grievant's serious misconduct warranted dismissal, particularly because grievant suffered no prejudice from the delay. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, and therefore reversed the Board's decision. View "In re Grievance of John Lepore" on Justia Law

Employer Entergy Corporation challenged the denial of its request for a credit against future workers’ compensation benefits owed to claimant Sharon Conant. Employer argued on appeal that, given the payments it made to claimant under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement, as well as the retroactive temporary total disability (TTD) payments it was ordered to make, claimant received more money as wage replacement than she was owed. After review, the Supreme Court agreed, and reversed the Commissioner of the Department of Labor’s decision on this point. View "Conant v. Entergy Corporation" on Justia Law

This appeal centered on two petitions filed on behalf of sixty-nine sworn law enforcement officers of the Vermont Department of Fish & Wildlife, Vermont Department of Liquor Control, and Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles. Here, the New England Police Benevolent Association (NEPBA) filed a petition seeking an election of collective bargaining representatives among the sworn officers, currently represented by the Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA) as part of the Non-Management Bargaining Unit. VSEA moved to dismiss the petition. The State agreed, and notified the Board by letter that the proposed bargaining unit would not be an appropriate unit. NEPBA appealed an order of the Vermont Labor Relations Board dismissing the petition. Finding no reversible error in the Board's decision, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Petition of New England Police Benevolent Association" on Justia Law

The Burlington Administrators’ Association and Nicolas Molander (collectively the Association) appealed a trial court’s confirmation of an arbitration decision that Molander, in his capacity as an interim assistant principal, was not entitled to the contractual and statutory protections applicable to regular assistant principals who were not hired on an interim or acting basis. In particular, they challenged the trial court’s conclusion that it had no authority to review the merits of the arbitrator’s ruling for “manifest disregard of the law,” and argued that in this case, the arbitrator’s ruling evinced such a disregard. Because the Supreme Court concluded that the arbitrator’s award did not in any event reflect a manifest disregard of the law, it did not address the question whether the trial court had authority to review an arbitration award under such a standard. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Burlington Administrators' Ass'n v. Burlington Bd. of School Comm'rs" on Justia Law

Claimant Debra Morisseau appealed a decision by the Commissioner of the Vermont Department of Labor awarding summary judgment to employer Hannaford Brothers on the question of whether the employer was obligated to pay for voice recognition technology, either as a vocational rehabilitation or medical benefit, as a consequence of her compensable work injury. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Morisseau v. Hannaford Brothers" on Justia Law

The Vermont State Employees’ Association (VSEA) filed eight petitions with the Vermont Labor Relations Board to elect collective bargaining representatives under the Vermont Municipal Employee Relations Act (MERA). VSEA sought to represent the employees within the State’s Attorney’s Offices (SAOs), including deputy state’s attorneys, victim advocates, and secretaries, in the counties of Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Orange, Rutland, Windsor, Addison, and Windham. The Board ultimately denied all eight petitions. "Plainly, the Legislature has endeavored to act comprehensively in covering government employees, including those working for local government entities such as the SAOs." The Supreme Court reversed the Board’s decision, and remanded the matter for the Board to proceed with the certification process. View "In re Election Petitions" on Justia Law

The Vermont Human Rights Commission and three female employees of the Vermont Department of Corrections (DOC) filed suit against the State (the DOC and the Vermont Department of Human Resources (DHR)) claiming that the DOC violated the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act (VFEPA) by paying a male employee in the same position as the female plaintiffs as much as $10,000 more annually without a legally defensible, gender-neutral reason. The trial court granted summary judgment to the State, concluding that although plaintiffs established a prima facie case, the undisputed facts established that the wage disparity was due to legitimate business reasons and not gender-based. After review, the Supreme Court found no reversible error and affirmed dismissal of plaintiffs' case. View "Vermont Human Rights Comm'n v. Vermont" on Justia Law

Employer Maple Leaf Farm Association, Inc. appealed a decision of the Employment Security Board finding that its former employee Katherine Kelley was involuntarily terminated from her position and therefore eligible for unemployment compensation benefits. Employer operated an intensive inpatient drug and alcohol treatment program. Claimant worked for employer as a part-time treatment counselor for seven years. Due to a conflict with a supervisor, claimant resigned from her position in writing on August 29, 2013. She stated in her letter to employer that her last day would be September 19, 2013, and employer allowed her to continue working. Four days later, on September 3, employer terminated her employment and escorted her off the premises. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation. The claims adjudicator determined that she was not entitled to benefits for the first two weeks after her termination because the accrued vacation pay that employer paid her during that period was in excess of her weekly benefit amount. The claims adjudicator further determined that claimant was not entitled to benefits because she had left employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to her employer. Employer appealed the referee’s decision to the Employment Security Board, which adopted the referee’s findings and affirmed its conclusions. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed the Board's decision. View "Kelley v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law

Vermont State Employees' Association (VSEA) appealed a Vermont Labor Relations Board decision which found that the State was not required to give certain compensation to state employees in the weeks and months following Tropical Storm Irene.The storm had a particularly devastating effect on the complex of state buildings in Waterbury. Governor Peter Shumlin authorized the complete closure of Vermont state government for one day. The closure notice stated that only authorized critical staff persons should report for work. In the days that followed, various work arrangements were necessary because the Waterbury complex was generally unusable. The Vermont Department of Human Resources indicated that agencies with offices in the complex had implemented their Continuity of Operations Plans (COOP). These plans allow only specifically authorized critical staff to work in order to continue an agency’s essential functions during and immediately following an emergency situation. All other employees in the complex were instructed that they "should not report to work unless specifically authorized to do so by a supervisor." Eventually, most of the state employees in the complex were assigned to new work stations as agencies moved their operations. At first, there was uncertainty about the work requirements and compensation for state employees who had worked in the complex. Over time, management reached a position on those policies. The position was unacceptable to VSEA, the union that represents the state’s classified employee workforce. VSEA charged that the State’s position was inconsistent with three collective bargaining agreements as well as a state personnel policy. When the parties could not resolve the conflict, VSEA appealed to the Vermont Labor Relations Board. VSEA contended that the Board erred in interpreting certain terms of the emergency closing provision of the collective bargaining agreements between the State and VSEA. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "In re Grievance of VSEA" on Justia Law

The single issue in this appeal was whether payments by employer 863 To Go, Inc. to its delivery drivers should have been excluded from the calculation of employer's contribution to Vermont's system of unemployment compensation. "In a process known to anyone who has ever ordered a pizza, the customer calls in his or her order. A bilateral contract based on an exchange of mutual promises is formed. The customer promises to pay for the meal either upon delivery or before. The price is set, except for any gratuity, as is the description of the meal. Employer promises to obtain the food and arrange for its delivery. . . . The delivery driver plays no discernible role in creating the contract of sale. The record contains no evidence that he or she can vary the terms of sale, either with respect to price or to product. The driver's only role is to deliver the food and to pick up the purchase price if it has not already been paid. He or she has not 'sold' anything. He or she has, obviously, 'delivered' dinner." Since the "selling" requirement of the exemption in section 1301(6)(C)(xxi) was not met, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Employment Security Board that employer was obligated to pay an unemployment compensation contribution to the Department of Labor with respect to its delivery drivers. View "863 To Go, Inc. v. Department of Labor" on Justia Law