In re Carnelli
| Decision Date | 21 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-127,19-127 |
| Citation | 228 A.3d 990 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | IN RE Grievance of Jacob CARNELLI |
Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, and Alison L.T. Powers, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Appellant State.
Timothy Belcher, General Counsel, Vermont State Employees' Association, Montpelier, for Appellee.
PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ., and Morris, Supr. J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned
¶ 1. The State appeals a decision by the Labor Relations Board that grievant, a former correctional officer who was eligible for mandatory reemployment pursuant to the applicable collective bargaining agreement (CBA), met the minimum qualifications for a position at the Department of Motor Vehicles requiring at least two years of "office clerical experience." We conclude that the Board overstepped its authority by failing to apply the minimum qualifications as established by the DMV, and therefore reverse.
¶ 2. The CBA at issue in this case provides that employees eligible for mandatory reemployment rights (sometimes called "RIF" rights) are entitled to an offer for any vacant classified bargaining unit position when management intends to fill it, provided, among other things, that the employee "meets the minimum qualifications for the position." The definition of "minimum qualifications" in the CBA is "the lowest level of skills, experience and educational qualifications necessary for admittance to the examination process." Consistent with this definition, the state policy relating to recruitment and posting of vacancies defines "minimum qualifications" as "criteria established for the initial screening of job applicants." Vt. Dep't of Human Res., Personnel Policy and Procedure Manual 4.0 (Sep. 13, 2015), https://humanresources. vermont.gov/sites/humanresources/files/documents/Labor_Relations_Policy_EEO/Policy_Proce dure_Manual/Number_4.0_RECRUITMENT_AND_POSTING_OF_VACANCIES.pdf [https://perma.cc/K3L3-FLY6] (Personnel Policy 4.0). The definition in Personnel Policy 4.0 further states:
Minimum qualifications are usually expressed in terms of the nature and amount of formal education, training, work experience, as well as any special requirements such as licenses, certifications, or physical standards. Minimum qualifications are set at a level that provides a reasonable likelihood that a candidate for the job possesses the most important minimum required knowledge, skills, and abilities to adequately perform entry level work in the job.
¶ 3. To effectuate these contractual reemployment rights, the Personnel Policies provide that before a position is made available for the competitive application process, it must be "RIF-cleared," a process in which the Department of Human Resources (DHR) screens the position to determine whether anyone with reemployment rights meets the minimum qualifications for the position. If so, DHR will make a "mandatory referral," and the department hiring manager has no discretion to decline to offer the position to the candidate.
¶ 4. The Vermont State Employees' Association (VSEA) filed this grievance on May 8, 2018, alleging that when the State filled an open position for Motor Vehicle Customer Service Specialist with the DMV, it denied grievant his right to reemployment under the CBA. After an evidentiary hearing, the Labor Relations Board found the following facts.
¶ 5. Grievant attended a four-year university as a full-time student from September 2006 to May 2010, receiving a Bachelor of Science degree in Sociology, with a focus on criminal justice. During that time, from May 2007 to August 2007, he worked as an office assistant in the university financial aid office, organizing student financial aid reports and records, mailing financial aid awards and records, and helping students at the front office with concerns or questions. He worked as an assistant in the information technology department from September 2009 to August 2010, greeting guests, answering phones, faxing and copying documents, scheduling conferences and trainings for staff using the computer, and transporting mail.
¶ 6. Grievant worked as a correctional officer for the Vermont Department of Corrections starting in December 2010. He was assigned to living units and as a float officer. In March 2016, he suffered a nonwork-related injury and could no longer work as a correctional officer. Beginning in October 2017, he qualified for a "medical reduction in force" and was therefore entitled to mandatory reemployment rights under the CBA. He took all contractually required steps to invoke his RIF rights, including meeting with a human resources coordinator at DHR to set the parameters of positions he would accept and provide information on his educational and work background.
¶ 7. The Department of Human Resources RIF-cleared the DMV position at issue here before posting it publicly in January 2018. The minimum education and experience qualifications for this position were:
Believing that he met the first standard of high school graduation and two years of office clerical experience that included significant public contact, grievant emailed the DHR coordinator to ask why he had not been referred to the position, and indicated that he believed he met the necessary qualifications. She replied that although he may have "some incidental clerical experience," he did not have two years of "office clerical experience." After several emails back and forth, she stopped responding. Several months later, the union filed this grievance challenging DHR's decision.
¶ 8. In assessing whether grievant met the minimum qualifications for the DMV position, the Board noted that it was undisputed that he met the educational (high school) requirement and that he had fifteen months of pertinent clerical experience based on his jobs while in college. The disputed issue, as described by the Board, was whether grievant should be "credited with at least nine months of pertinent clerical experience for the five plus years he served as a correctional officer."1
¶ 9. In evaluating this question, the Board reviewed the job responsibilities of a correctional officer. It found that correctional officers routinely perform head counts of inmates, conduct security checks, inspect inmates' cells, supervise inmates' meals and visitations, conduct perimeter checks, and transport inmates outside of the correctional facility. The Board noted, "Many of these security functions are documented with a written report or some other paperwork as a record of the activity." The Board found that grievant had access to a desk, telephone, and computer, and that he had been responsible for communicating via phone and email, scheduling meetings, logging information, and managing mail. It found that grievant had performed these duties "for the equivalent of at least nine months during his tenure as a correctional officer." In concluding otherwise, the Board found, the State had taken "an unduly narrow view of applicable clerical experience in the modern workplace." The Board explained that the State was required to "examine grievant's tasks as a correctional officer and weigh his experience in meeting the competencies of the Motor Vehicle Customer Service Specialist position." Although that position had already been filled and grievant had accepted another position at Vermont Psychiatric Hospital, the Board ordered the State to offer grievant the next available vacancy, and to provide him with back pay and any benefits he lost as a result of not being selected.2
¶ 10. The State appeals, arguing that the Board abused its discretion in finding that grievant met the minimum qualifications for the DMV position. Specifically, it argues that the Board impermissibly broadened the contractual definition of minimum qualifications, failed to defer to the State in its interpretation of the minimum qualifications, and engaged in an analysis of grievant's competencies that was not bargained for in the CBA. The State also argues that the Board's findings as to grievant's experience as a correctional officer did not support its conclusion that he met the minimum qualifications for the DMV position.
¶ 11. We agree that the Board failed to defer to the State's authority to establish minimum qualifications for RIF-eligible positions and instead essentially substituted alternative minimum qualifications, focusing on the cumulative time grievant spent performing clerical tasks during his tenure as a correctional officer rather than whether grievant had the requisite experience working in an "office clerical" position. Our conclusion flows from a consideration of the applicable standard of review as well as the specific minimum qualifications for the DMV position.
¶ 12. Although we are generally deferential in our review of Labor Relations Board decisions, we owe no deference when the Board exceeds its authority. Because this limitation on our deference to the Board shapes our analysis in this case, we explain it in further detail.
¶ 13. Generally, our review of the Board's reasonable construction of a CBA is deferential. "On appeal from the Board's decision, we defer to the Board's construction of the collective bargaining agreement, given the Board's expertise in that area." In re Jewett, 2009 VT 67, ¶ 25, 186 Vt. 160, 978 A.2d 470. Accordingly, to the extent that the Board's analysis in this case hinges on its understanding of the CBA's requirements, we owe deference if its interpretation is reasonable. We likewise defer to the Board's factual findings, and will not set them aside...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Abbey
...did the Board improperly intrude on the State's management function in reaching its decision. Cf. In re Carnelli, 2020 VT 12, ¶ 14, 211 Vt. 522, 228 A.3d 990 (holding that overstepped its authority by substituting alternative minimum qualifications for classified position, because establish......