99 A.3d 1025
Vt.2014Background
- Tropical Storm Irene flooded the Waterbury state complex (and a Rutland DMV), prompting a one-day gubernatorial complete shutdown of state government on August 29, 2011; many Waterbury offices remained unusable for weeks.
- State agencies implemented Continuity of Operations Plans: some employees were authorized to work (critical staff) at temporary locations; others were told not to report unless authorized.
- VSEA claimed the State’s post-storm pay and leave practices violated collective bargaining agreement emergency-closing provisions (sections 5–6), work-location/shift reassignment rules (Article 20), annual leave rules, and Personnel Policy 11.3.
- Central contract language: (1) a complete closing entitles employees out of the closed office to regular pay; (2) employees required to work during a complete closing get hourly pay in addition to regular pay (section 6); (3) reassignment to a new geographic area requires advance notice.
- The Vermont Labor Relations Board found the State did not violate the contracts, concluding the emergency (and the special emergency-closing pay) ended after August 29 and that temporary assignments did not change official duty stations.
- VSEA appealed; the Supreme Court reviewed the Board’s contract interpretations with deference and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether section 6’s additional (double) pay applies beyond the initial emergency day while employees remained out of their regular offices | VSEA: Section 5/6 apply from the date of the complete closing until an employee is reassigned to a new duty station; thus employees who worked at alternate sites after Aug 29 were entitled to additional pay | State: Section 5/6 apply only during the emergency itself; once the emergency ended (Aug 30 onward), extra pay did not apply even if offices remained damaged | Held: Court affirms Board — emergency-closing extra pay ends when the emergency ends; VSEA’s broader "causation" reading rejected |
| When did the emergency end for purposes of triggering section 5/6 | VSEA: The office remained "closed" for emergency reasons until employees received relocation notices, so the emergency-closing pay continued | State: The emergency ended after Aug 29; agencies resumed operations at temporary locations, so no continuing emergency justification for extra pay | Held: Board’s factual finding that no emergency persisted after Aug 29 (i.e., by Aug 30) is supported by evidence and not clearly erroneous; no double pay after that date |
| Whether temporary assignment to alternate worksites changed an employee’s official duty station (affecting notice/entitlements) | VSEA: Employees out of their regular offices were effectively out of the closed office until reassigned, so protections/compensation tied to closure should continue | State: Temporary work at alternate locations does not change official duty station absent formal notice; State complied with reassignment rules and provided compensation for travel/mileage | Held: Board reasonably found temporary assignments did not change official duty stations; State’s actions permitted under contracts |
| Whether State discriminated in applying leave rules or Personnel Policy 11.3 (charging leave to some employees but not others) | VSEA: Requiring some non-working employees to use leave while others received regular pay violated leave articles and Policy 11.3 | State: Those leave claims rest on VSEA’s emergency-closing interpretation; without that, no contractual violation | Held: Because VSEA’s emergency-closing interpretation fails, its leave claims fail; Board’s rejection affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Lilly, 795 A.2d 1163 (Vt. 2002) (standard for upholding agency factual findings)
- In re West, 685 A.2d 1099 (Vt. 1996) (collective bargaining agreements construed under contract principles)
- Grievance of Gorruso, 549 A.2d 631 (Vt. 1988) (contract interpretation to effect parties' intent)
- In re Barney, 772 A.2d 1074 (Vt. 2001) (court's role is to determine intent from contract language)