Champion v. Hall County
309 Neb. 55
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Eddy Champion, a Hall County corrections officer, was disciplined after a social media post and "removed from transport duty indefinitely," which the director treated as including denial of certain transport overtime shifts.
- The Department and the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge No. 78 were parties to a collective bargaining agreement that (1) reserved broad management and disciplinary rights to the employer, (2) included an overtime-seniority posting provision (art. 22 § 7), and (3) prescribed a grievance procedure giving a Grievance Committee the right to hold hearing(s) with a hearings officer and receive sworn testimony.
- Champion and the FOP grieved the denial of posted unarmed-transport overtime; the Grievance Committee held an evidentiary hearing, received sworn testimony and stipulated exhibits, then unanimously denied the grievance, concluding the director acted within his contractual rights.
- Champion filed a petition in error in Hall County District Court seeking review of the Grievance Committee decision under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 25-1901 et seq.; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning no statute required the committee to act judicially and the committee decided legal questions on undisputed facts.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the Legislature had not conferred quasi-judicial power on the grievance body created by the collective bargaining agreement, so its decision was not a "judgment rendered" or "final order" reviewable by petition in error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Grievance Committee was "exercising judicial functions" under § 25-1901 | The committee conducted an adversarial evidentiary hearing with sworn testimony and thus exercised judicial functions subject to petition in error | No statute contemplates the committee as a judicial body; statute required for petition in error jurisdiction | No — Legislature did not confer quasi-judicial power; petition in error unavailable |
| Whether collective bargaining procedures can create a tribunal "inferior in jurisdiction" reviewable by petition in error | The contract’s grievance procedures established an adjudicatory tribunal whose decisions are reviewable | Parties cannot self-create a statutorily authorized tribunal; collective bargaining cannot substitute for statute | No — contractual procedures alone do not confer petition-in-error jurisdiction |
| Whether deciding legal issues on undisputed facts constitutes a judicial function | An evidentiary hearing and record justify review even if outcome turns on contract interpretation | The committee decided legal questions, not adjudicative fact; mere hearing without statutory imprimatur is insufficient | Court: Deciding law on undisputed facts does not convert the committee into a judicial entity absent statutory authorization |
| Whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition in error | District court should have exercised jurisdiction because the committee followed required hearing procedures | Dismissal proper for lack of statutory basis for petition in error review | Affirmed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1, 892 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2017) (quasi-judicial function exists when hearing and evidence are required to decide adjudicative facts)
- Kropp v. Grand Island Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 246 Neb. 138, 517 N.W.2d 113 (Neb. 1994) (grievance committee not required by statute to act judicially; no petition in error jurisdiction)
- Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943, 627 N.W.2d 118 (Neb. 2001) (standards for petition in error and importance of record for appellate review)
- McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 Neb. 552, 931 N.W.2d 120 (Neb. 2019) (jurisdictional questions not involving facts are reviewed as matters of law)
- Turnbull v. County of Pawnee, 19 Neb. App. 43, 810 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. Ct. App. 2011) (Court of Appeals decision holding grievance reviewable by petition in error — disapproved to extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- In re Application of Olmer, 275 Neb. 852, 752 N.W.2d 124 (Neb. 2008) (examples and discussion of when an entity acts in quasi-judicial vs. quasi-legislative capacity)