by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
ARTICLE 36 – WAGES<br />
36.02 – General Wage Increase<br />
It was decided that the grievant was not a new State<br />
employee but she was a new employee of the agency.<br />
According to the Civil Service rules, employees from the<br />
State maintain certain benefits when they move from job to<br />
job, but the Union did not point out specific language<br />
showing that an employee moving from one state agency to<br />
another must always move at the same or greater wage rate.<br />
The new agency considered the grievant a new hire and it<br />
was generally accepted that she had a 120 day probationary<br />
period and presumably after successful completion, she<br />
would move up a step per Section 36.02 of the Agreement.<br />
The grievant’s claim that she merely transferred to the new<br />
agency was not supported. Article 17 of the Agreement<br />
defines promotions as moving to a higher pay range and a<br />
lateral transfer as a movement to a different position at the<br />
same pay range. It does not specify that a lateral transfer<br />
from one agency to another agency within the State must be<br />
at the same step within the same pay range. The employer<br />
did not transfer the grievant; she applied for a vacant<br />
position: 360<br />
The non-probationary step movement pay in Article 36.03<br />
shall be strictly enforced. Any employees who did not<br />
properly receive a pay increase due to management error<br />
shall have such errors rectified. Examples of the kind of<br />
employees who did not properly receive a pay increase<br />
included: a) employees absent on disability who did not<br />
have their anniversary date reset correctly, and b)<br />
employees who did not receive a step increase including the<br />
pay period including July 1, 2005, which commenced on<br />
June 26, 2005. The Union was responsible for informing<br />
the State, no later than 90 calendar days from Dec. 20, 2005,<br />
of any such situated employees. 917<br />
36.04 (formerly Article 36.03 of 1986 contract)<br />
Promotions<br />
The parties negotiated that there is to be no step above Step<br />
6 in Pay Range 7, and so, the grievant, even though he was<br />
promoted from top step of Pay Range 27 to the top of Pay<br />
Range 7, is not entitled to a four percent increase as<br />
specified in Article 36.04. Given the conflict between<br />
36.04, which grants a four percent increase upon<br />
promotion, and the pay schedule rules, to create an<br />
additional step would be an act outside the authority of the<br />
Arbitrator. 462<br />
(1992-94 contract)<br />
36.05 – Classifications and Pay Range Assignment<br />
“Corrections officers” means all corrections officers, no<br />
specific group is excluded, i.e., special duty C.O.’s. 107<br />
The 1st sentence of 36.05 mandates that all corrections<br />
officers will receive 30 minutes pay as of 7-1-86 regardless<br />
of whether they stand roll call or not. The 2nd sentence<br />
mandates that current reporting times be continued on 7-1-<br />
86 and does not apply to the continuation of then current<br />
wage practices. 107<br />
Roll call discipline. 152<br />
Section 36.05 preserves and carries forward the practices of<br />
individual correctional facilities on discipline for roll-call<br />
attendance deficiencies. 36.05 is not limited to preserving<br />
departmental practices. 152<br />
Section 36.05 states “current practice on reporting time<br />
shall be continued unless mutually agreed otherwise.” It<br />
must be presumed that the language was not thrown into<br />
the Agreement for its appearance – that the negotiators used<br />
it for the substantive purpose of preserving roll call<br />
practices. In other words, Section 36.05 is an exception to<br />
the abolishment of practices brought about <strong>by</strong> Article 43,<br />
Section 43.03. 152<br />
Having decided that the grievant was not qualified for the<br />
position, it is unnecessary to decide whether the State was<br />
guilty of pre-positioning in violation of Article 36.05. 487<br />
(formerly Article 36.04 of 1986 contract) –<br />
Classifications and Pay Range Assignments<br />
Under <strong>Contract</strong> Article 36.05, the employer, through the<br />
office of Collective Bargaining, may create classifications,<br />
change the pay range of classifications, authorize advance<br />
step hiring, if needed for recruitment, or other legitimate<br />
reasons, and issue or modify specifications as needed.<br />
However, the Office of Collective Bargaining must notify<br />
the Union 45 days in advance of any change of pay range<br />
specifications. The Office of Collective Bargaining did not<br />
notify the Union of revisions in the positions of DHO 1 and<br />
2, in violation of 36.05. 553<br />
The arbitrator did not find sufficient evidence to conclude<br />
that DAS arbitrarily evaluated the Highway Maintenance<br />
Worker 2 and 3 positions. He found that DAS considered<br />
all relevant fact and properly applied its standards of<br />
measurement to those facts and that the pay ranges assigned<br />
to the positions were proper. 766<br />
The record did not support that the Union’s proposed pay<br />
range increase for Civil Rights Investigator/s. The Union<br />
was unable to convince the arbitrator that the six-point<br />
differential was supported <strong>by</strong> the testimony and evidence at<br />
the hearing. The Union did not convince the arbitrator that<br />
the Alternative Dispute Resolution Classification point<br />
factoring was a legitimate comparable in considering this<br />
matter. The arbitrator issued guidelines for computing<br />
salaries for new assignments. 781<br />
There was limited bargaining history surrounding the<br />
disputed portion of Article 36/05. It was clear to the<br />
arbitrator that the Union was able to get a guarantee, agreed<br />
to <strong>by</strong> the employer, that a point factoring analysis and/or a<br />
market wage study could result in an increase to an existing