by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
his initial employment. The personnel officer and<br />
food manager interviewed the grievant and<br />
testified that the 180-day probationary period<br />
was discussed. 732<br />
The Grievant had accepted an inter-agency<br />
transfer, demotion, and headquarter county<br />
change. The Department sent her a letter that<br />
erroneously stated that she would “serve a<br />
probationary period of 60 days in this position.”<br />
A month later the Department issued a<br />
“Corrected Letter” informing her that she would<br />
serve a probationary period of 120 days,<br />
provided <strong>by</strong> Article 6.01 D. The Grievant’s<br />
Final Probationary Evaluation rated her<br />
performance as unsatisfactory and she was<br />
probationarily removed. The Arbitrator held that<br />
the Grievant was in an initial probationary period<br />
and not a trial period when she was removed.<br />
The Acknowledgment she signed explicitly<br />
referenced Article 6.01 D, used the term “initial<br />
probationary period”, and placed her on notice<br />
that she could be removed during that period<br />
without recourse. The Grievant neither<br />
consulted the Collective Bargaining Agreement<br />
or Union before signing the Acknowledgment;<br />
nor did she inquire about the change or file a<br />
grievance when she got the corrected letter.<br />
Trial periods differ from probationary periods in<br />
that they are one-half the regular probationary<br />
period and employees in trial periods are not<br />
prohibited from using the grievance procedure to<br />
protest discipline and discharge actions. The<br />
Arbitrator held that regardless of the mistake<br />
made <strong>by</strong> the Department (but later rectified) she<br />
had no authority to review the Department’s<br />
removal decision. Therefore, the matter of the<br />
Grievant’s removal was not arbitrable. 936<br />
While the Grievant claimed to have the<br />
necessary background in research methods in her<br />
summary of her qualifications, the information<br />
contained in her application and resume did not<br />
support her claim. She failed to show any<br />
experience with operational, mathematical,<br />
analytical, or statistical research methods. The<br />
Arbitrator rejected the claim that when the state<br />
denied her an interview for the Planner 3<br />
position and awarded it to someone else, it<br />
engaged in sex and/or age discrimination in<br />
violation of Article 2. A large portion of the<br />
employees in the Emergency Management<br />
Agency are women and three of the top five<br />
leadership positions are held <strong>by</strong> women .The<br />
Arbitrator held that the Grievant failed to show<br />
that she satisfied the minimum qualifications for<br />
the Planner 3 position when she applied. The<br />
grievance was denied. 939<br />
6.02 – Promotional/Lateral Transfers<br />
Probationary Period<br />
It is unclear on what basis the arbitrator found<br />
the grievance to be timely. The grievant waited<br />
almost six months to grieve the issue. The<br />
grievant was given advice <strong>by</strong> her steward not to<br />
grieve within her probationary period or she<br />
would be fired. The grievant relied on this advice<br />
and did not grieve until after the probationary<br />
period. Another basis on which the arbitrator<br />
could have ruled that the grievance was<br />
arbitrable was that the employer’s action can be<br />
categorized as a continuing violation. 360<br />
ARTICLE 7 - OTHER THAN PERMANENT<br />
POSITIONS<br />
7.01 – Temporary Positions<br />
The employer abolishing a position and having<br />
the same employee become a part-time<br />
employee doing the same work as she did<br />
previously on a full-time basis points toward the<br />
abolishment being improper. The original<br />
position was still intact, the grievant instead of<br />
working forty hours a week worked thirty nine.<br />
The work was not consolidated or redistributed.<br />
The abolishment was illegal. 340**<br />
The arbitrator determined that the grievance was<br />
arbitrable. Article 7.10 refers to a time limit for<br />
TWL positions – 120 days. That time limit must<br />
be interpreted. The arbitrator was not persuaded<br />
<strong>by</strong> the State’s interpretation of the Agreement.<br />
He determined 120 days for a TWL meant 120<br />
days. The language in the Agreement is clear<br />
and unambiguous. To allow the State to keep<br />
individuals in positions outside the bargaining<br />
unit for more than 120 days would negate the<br />
120-day limitation. 813<br />
7.03 - Intermittent Positions<br />
Before the grievant could be laid off as a<br />
permanent full-time employee in her<br />
classification, intermittent employees in the<br />
same classification must be laid off first. 471<br />
(1992-94 contract)