Champion v. Hall County
958 N.W.2d 396
Neb.2021Background
- Champion, a Hall County corrections officer, was disciplined after a social-media post and was removed indefinitely from transport duty by the Department director.
- The parties’ collective bargaining agreement (CBA) reserved broad management and disciplinary rights to the employer but included a grievance procedure providing for a Grievance Committee hearing with an attorney hearing officer and sworn testimony.
- Champion filed a grievance claiming the director lacked authority under the CBA to bar him from posted unarmed-transport overtime (seniority-based); the Grievance Committee held an evidentiary hearing on stipulated facts and exhibits.
- The Grievance Committee unanimously upheld the director’s action, finding the director acted within the CBA’s management/disciplinary authority.
- Champion and the FOP filed a petition in error in district court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1901 seeking review; the district court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, reasoning no statute required the committee to act in a judicial manner and it decided legal issues on undisputed facts.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: absent statutory authorization, a committee created by CBA procedures is not a quasi-judicial tribunal whose decisions are reviewable by petition in error, even if it conducts evidentiary hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Grievance Committee exercised "judicial functions" so § 25-1901 permits petition in error | CBA required an adversarial evidentiary hearing; the committee heard sworn testimony and thus exercised judicial functions | No statute contemplates the committee or requires it to act judicially; a hearing alone does not make it quasi-judicial | No; Legislature did not confer quasi-judicial power, so petition in error jurisdiction lacking |
| Whether the CBA-created procedures established an inferior tribunal reviewable by petition in error | The CBA’s adjudicatory procedure created a tribunal capable of rendering final orders | Parties cannot create an inferior tribunal by contract; statutory conferral is required | CBA procedures alone do not convert a committee into an inferior tribunal under § 25-1901 |
| Whether deciding adjudicative facts at the hearing made the committee’s decision reviewable | The committee resolved facts and law, making its decision a final order subject to review | Even if facts were resolved, without statutory authority the decision is not a "judgment" or "final order" under § 25-1901 | Even assuming factfinding, absent statutory authorization the committee’s decision is not reviewable by petition in error |
| Whether the district court erred in relying on precedent or assuming the CBA was unambiguous | Challenger argued prior cases (Kropp/Hawkins) should be overruled and the court should reach the merits | County argued dismissal was correct irrespective of alleged ambiguity | Court affirmed dismissal and disapproved Turnbull to the extent inconsistent; no jurisdictional error |
Key Cases Cited
- Medicine Creek v. Middle Republican NRD, 296 Neb. 1, 892 N.W.2d 74 (Neb. 2017) (explains when a tribunal’s hearing/evidence constitutes quasi-judicial function)
- Kropp v. Grand Island Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 2, 246 Neb. 138, 517 N.W.2d 113 (Neb. 1994) (grievance committee not statutory → no petition in error jurisdiction)
- Hawkins v. City of Omaha, 261 Neb. 943, 627 N.W.2d 118 (Neb. 2001) (standards for determining quasi-judicial functions and appellate jurisdiction)
- McEwen v. Nebraska State College Sys., 303 Neb. 552, 931 N.W.2d 120 (Neb. 2019) (jurisdictional questions of law are reviewed de novo)
- Turnbull v. County of Pawnee, 19 Neb. App. 43, 810 N.W.2d 172 (Neb. Ct. App. 2011) (county-board grievance review held reviewable; disapproved to extent inconsistent with this opinion)
- In re Claim of Roberts for Attorney Fees, 307 Neb. 346, 949 N.W.2d 299 (Neb. 2020) (definition and scope of a “special proceeding”)