In June 2026, a Lancaster County District Court judge ruled that two NAPE/AFSCME members, who are Registered Nurses at the Youth Rehabilitation and Treatment Center in Hastings, were not entitled to two hours of minimum pay when they were in on-call status and were called back to perform their duties remotely. This ruling is the latest in a five year legal battle to protect our contractual rights when our members are called back to duty.
Our union contract guarantees members a minimum of two hours of pay if they are called back to duty outside of their regular schedule. This provision of our contract had never been in dispute until 2021 when the Department of Health & Human Services (DHHS) stopped paying the two hour minimum callback pay if employees did not report to their worksite to perform the work.
In response, NAPE/AFSCME filed a grievance because our contract contains no provision that requires the employee to perform the work at a specific location to qualify for the two hour minimum callback pay. NAPE prevailed in that grievance action, and the arbitrator specifically noted that DHHS unilaterally added a requirement to report to a physical location to receive the two hour minimum callback pay.
Shortly thereafter, the Nebraska Department of Transportation (NDOT) also refused to honor the two hour minimum callback pay for employees who were called back to duty to perform work from their home. NAPE filed a new grievance, however, the DAS Employee Relations Administrator exercised his authority and ordered that the case be heard by the Nebraska State Personnel Board instead of an arbitrator.
A Hearing Officer was appointed on behalf of the State Personnel Board and conducted a hearing in accordance with our contract. Like the previous arbitrator, the Hearing Officer agreed that our contract has no provision requiring an employee to report to a physical work location to receive the two hour minimum pay. The Hearing Officer recommended that the State Personnel Board sustain the grievance and award the two hour minimum pay to our members.
The State Personnel Board, however, rejected the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and instead ruled that our contract does not allow for two hours of minimum pay unless the workers report to a location away from their home. In response, NAPE/AFSCME appealed the Personnel Board’s decision by filing a petition for administrative review in the District Court of Lancaster County.
The NDOT case was heard in 2023 by Lancaster County District Court Judge Ryan Post. Judge Post reviewed the Personnel Board’s decision in its entirety, and Judge Post came to a different legal conclusion than the Board. Judge Post did not rule on the issue of whether an employee must report to a physical work location, but instead ruled that an employee who is in an “on call status” is “on duty” and, therefore, is not entitled to the two hour minimum pay. This is contrary to how the parties have handled this issue in the past. Employees have always been paid for two hours minimum if they are called back to a physical location when they are on call.
Judge Post’s 2023 decision did not directly address the issue of “location” that was presented by the parties. Judge Post acknowledged that fact, and said that he might rule differently with a different set of facts. That’s when NAPE/AFSCME members at YRTC-Hastings were denied the minimum callback pay. Our union promptly filed another grievance, and a year later, ended up back in front of the State Personnel Board.
Once again, a Hearing Officer recommended a decision in favor of our members. It was the fifth time the case had been brought, and each arbitrator and Hearing Officer sided with our members. The Personnel Board, however, once again rejected the recommendation and denied the grievance. NAPE/AFSCME once again appealed to the District Court, and the case was once again assigned to Judge Post.
Judge Post issued his latest decision in June 2026. In our favor, Judge Post ruled that it is not a requirement to perform callback work at a state worksite in order to qualify for callback pay. Unfortunately, Judge Post ruled against our nurses finding that they were not “called back for duty” but rather remained “on call.” This is not how either party has interpreted our contract in the past.
“This case has been heard five times, and each time an arbitrator or hearing officer has ruled in our favor,” said Justin Hubly, Executive Director of NAPE/AFSCME. “We believe the facts in this case are straightforward, there is a sufficiently clear record, and we are preparing to appeal this decision to the Nebraska Court of Appeals.”
NAPE/AFSCME is committed to protecting and defending the rights of our members at all levels, including filing legal action when necessary. If you are not a NAPE/AFSCME member, will you stand with us by joining today?