by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

The grievant had a thirty-day time limit on filing
her grievance starting from the date the grievant
became or reasonably should have become aware
of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance.
The event giving rise to the grievance occurred
when the gievant continued to be carried as a
probationary employee after sixty days of
employment. The grievant had thirty days from
the date when she was worngfully listed as a
probationary employee. The Union’s argument
that the grievant was not harmed until she was
later removed was dismissed. The arbitrator
found that as soon as the grievant was kept on
probationary status and did not receive the full
protection and rights of seniority status that she
was harmed. The employer is also not liable for
the training of the employee in her right to bring
a grievance. The employer did not act in bad
faith to keep the grievant in the dark as to her
rights. The employee also had worked for the
State previously and had adequate time to
discover the issue of her probationary status and
raise it in a timely fashion. The grievance was
not arbitrable since it was untimely 344
It was decided that the grievant was not a new
State employee but she was a new employee of
the agency. According to the Civil Service rules,
employees of the State maintain certain benefits
when they move from job to job, but the Union
did not point out specific language showing that
an employee moving from one state agency to
another must always move at he same or greater
wage rate. The new agency considered the
grievant a new hire and it was generally accepted
that she had a 120 day probationary period and
presumably after successful completion, she
would move up a step per Section 36.02 of the
Agreement. The grievant’s claim that she merely
transferred to the new agency was not supported.
Article 17 of the Agreement defines promotions
as moving to a higher pay range and a lateral
transfer as a movement to a different position at
the same pay range. It does not specify that a
lateral transfer from one agency to another
agency within the State must be at the same step
within the same pay range. The employer did not
transfer the grievant; she applied for a vacant
position. 360
The grievant had held several less than
permanent positions with the state since March
1989. In December 1990 the grievant bid on and
received a Delivery Worker position from which
he was removed as a probationary employee
after 117 days. The grievant grieved the
probationary removal, arguing that his previous
less than permanent service should have counted
towards the probationary period. The arbitrator
found the grievance not arbitrable because it was
untimely. The triggering event was found to
have been the end of the shortened probationary
period, not the removal. The union or the
grievant were held obligated to discover when an
employee’s probationary period may be
abbreviated due to prior service. The employer
was found to have no duty to notify a
probationary employee of the grievant’s
eligibility for a shortened probationary period
when it is disputed. There was no intentional
misrepresentation made by the employer, thus
the employee waived his right to grieve the end
of his probationary period and the employer was
not estopped form removing the grievant. The
grievance was not arbitrable. 411
The time at which the grievant was allegedly
improperly classified as a probationary employee
is the triggering event upon which to determine
whether the grievance has been timely filed. 455
(1992-94 contract)
Under Contract Article 6.01, the probationary
period shall be 120 days for classifications paid
at grades 1- 7 and grades 23-28 or 180 days for
classifications paid at grades 8-12 and grades 29-
36. The positions of Disability Claims
Adjudicator 1, Reclamation Inspector 1, and all
Attorney classifications shall have a probationary
period of one year. The probationary periods for
Disability Claims Adjudicator 1 and
Reclamation Inspector 1 could be changed to 1
year, but DHO 1 and 2 could not be changed
because they did not have the word “Attorney”
in their title. 553 (1994-97 contract)
Section 6.01 of the collective bargaining
agreement requires that correction officers serve
a 180-day probationary period wherein the
employer retains the right to remove the
probationary employee. Because the Arbitrator
found that the grievant was a probationary
employee at the time of the removal, the
employer did not have to show just cause to
support the removal. 698 (1997-2000 contract)
The Arbitrator determined that the grievant was
on an initial probationary period at TICO and
based his findings on the evidence that included
the grievant’s signature on a Supplemental
Employment Agreement that made reference to