198 A.3d 44
Vt.2018Background
- Grievant Kobe Kelley, a long‑term state surveyor, took a seven‑week leave for a serious knee injury; supervisor placed him on unpaid family leave under Article 35. For weeks 1–6 he used accrued sick leave; for week 7 the State required use of annual leave.
- VSEA grieved, arguing Article 31 (Sick Leave) authorizes unrestricted use of accrued sick leave when employee is unable to work due to illness, so Kelley should have been allowed sick leave in week 7.
- Article 35(5)(b) (added in 1999) allows employees on family leave to use up to six weeks of accrued paid leave (including sick leave), then requires a cascade: compensatory time, personal time, annual leave.
- Vermont and federal family/medical leave statutes guarantee up to 12 weeks unpaid leave and permit employers to require use of paid leave up to six weeks; collective bargaining nonwaiver language preserves more generous contract rights.
- The Vermont Labor Relations Board found the contract ambiguous, relied on bargaining history and past practice, and concluded the parties did not intend Article 35 to curtail employees’ preexisting unrestricted use of sick leave for their own serious illness; it sustained Kelley’s grievance.
- The State appealed, arguing the Article 35 cascade plainly limits sick‑leave use for any "serious illness," including the employee’s own, and that past practice cannot rewrite the contract; the Supreme Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Article 35(5)(b)'s 6‑week cap on use of sick leave during family leave limits an employee's right under Article 31 to use accrued sick leave for their own serious illness | VSEA/Kelley: Article 31 grants unrestricted sick‑leave use for employee illness; Article 35's nonwaiver clause preserves that right, so sick leave remains available beyond six weeks for the employee's own serious illness | State: Article 35 applies to any "serious illness" and supplies the framework for family leave; its cascade plainly limits concurrent use of sick leave to six weeks, superseding Article 31 in that context | Court: Agreement is ambiguous; deferential review of Board finds parties did not intend Article 35 to diminish preexisting unrestricted sick‑leave rights for an employee's own serious illness; Kelley prevails |
Key Cases Cited
- Trs. of Net Realty Holding Tr. v. AVCO Fin. Servs. of Barre, Inc., 144 Vt. 243, 476 A.2d 530 (contract interpretation allows use of extrinsic evidence when ambiguous)
- In re West, 165 Vt. 445, 685 A.2d 1099 (Board has special expertise; court gives great deference to Board construction of collective bargaining agreements)
- City of Newport v. Vill. of Derby Ctr., 197 Vt. 560, 109 A.3d 412 (deferential review to factfinder on intent where contract ambiguous)
- Vt. State Colls. Faculty Fed'n v. Vt. State Colls., 151 Vt. 457, 561 A.2d 417 (collective bargaining agreements interpreted as contracts)
- Cheever v. Albro, 138 Vt. 566, 421 A.2d 1287 (unambiguous contracts are enforced according to plain meaning)
- Isbrandtsen v. N. Branch Corp., 150 Vt. 575, 556 A.2d 81 (contract ambiguous only if reasonable people could differ)
- Mongeon Bay Props., LLC v. Mallets Bay Homeowner's Ass'n, 202 Vt. 434, 149 A.3d 940 (past practice may give meaning to, supplement, or qualify a contract)