Collective Bargaining Agreement Protects Your Right to Engage in Supplemental Employment

February 19, 2009

A grievance was filed against the Department of Environmental Quality when a request for supplemental employment was approved but with limitations/restrictions. The request was to teach a class. The Employer claimed there was a conflict of interest if the employee taught this class because he would be teaching, “individuals or employees of communities that you regulate, oversee, or evaluate.” The Union’s position was that the Employer could not prove that there was an “actual” conflict of interest which is what is required in order to prohibit/limit supplemental employment. Other DEQ Employees taught these types of courses as supplemental employment for over thirty years and even the thought of a conflict of interest was never raised. Additionally, the Grievant and other co-workers taught these types of courses as a part of their DEQ jobs during regular work time. The Arbitrator ruled that if there was no conflict during DEQ hours, there was no conflict outside of DEQ hours - regardless if the employee was paid separately from their DEQ job. Additionally, the Arbitrator ruled that the Employer’s, “limitation, in effect, prohibited supplemental employment for potential and apparent conflicts of interests; but did not limit its scope to the prohibition of actual conflicts of interest. It was a violation of the Agreement to prohibit supplemental employment upon evidence of only potential or apparent conflicts of interest. The record simply did not establish an actual conflict of interest.” “The Arbitrator is convinced that both the Agreement between the parties and the Civil Service Rules prohibits supplemental employment that results in an ‘actual’ conflict of interest. Neither the Agreement, nor the Civil Service Rules authorizes the DEQ to regulate potential or apparent conflicts of interest; . . .” THIS IS EXCELLENT LANGUAGE!

Not only did the DEQ have to pay over a thousand dollars for the Arbitration hearing and award, they had to pay the Grievant damages for the lost revenue from teaching the course. The Union has prevailed on this type of case before and with this recent award, remains on firm ground when it comes to conflicts of interest and supplemental employment.