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.
position was exempt. Although the<br />
duties were not fiduciary, many of the<br />
duties were central to managerial<br />
decision-making authority. 1024<br />
17.04 (formerly Article 17.03 of the 1986<br />
contract) – Posting<br />
The employer posted a Statistician 3 position<br />
which the grievants and other individuals bid for.<br />
The two grievants had eighteen and thirteen<br />
years seniority, while the successful applicant<br />
had only one year seniority. The employer<br />
contended that the grievants did not meet the<br />
minimum qualifications for the position and the<br />
successful applicant was demonstrably superior.<br />
The employer was found to have the burden of<br />
proving demonstrable superiority which was<br />
interpreted as a “substantial difference.”<br />
Demonstrable superiority was found only to<br />
apply after the applicants have been found to<br />
possess the minimum qualification. Also, the<br />
arbitrator stated that if no applicant brings<br />
“precisely the relevant qualifications” to the<br />
position, the employer may promote the junior<br />
applicant if a greater potential for success was<br />
found. The arbitrator found that the employer<br />
proved that the junior employee was<br />
demonstrably superior and the grievance was<br />
denied. 382<br />
The resignation of an OBES Claims Examiner 2<br />
created a vacancy which the employer did not<br />
post, but instead transferred in a Claims<br />
Examiner 2 from an office outside the district.<br />
The transferred employee received a new<br />
Position Control <strong>Number</strong>, but not the one<br />
vacated <strong>by</strong> the employee who resigned. A<br />
violation of the contract was conceded <strong>by</strong> the<br />
employer and the sole issue was the appropriate<br />
remedy. The arbitrator ordered the position in<br />
question to be vacated and posted for bids. The<br />
transferred employee was allowed to remain in<br />
the position until the status of her application<br />
was determined. If she fails to obtain the position<br />
she occupied, the employer was ordered to place<br />
her back into the office which she had left so as<br />
to prevent any lost wages due to the transfers. If<br />
a person other than the transferred employee<br />
receives the position, that employee must be<br />
made whole for any lost wages and benefits. 399<br />
The Department of Natural Resources<br />
determined a need for more Geologist 4<br />
employees and that all employees in the<br />
groundwater division would be classified as<br />
geologists. Geologist positions were posted in<br />
ODNR offices but in the grievant’s office the<br />
most senior Environmental Engineer was<br />
reassigned to a Geologist 4 position. The<br />
reassigned employee testified that her job<br />
responsibilities had changed since the<br />
reassignment. The arbitrator found that the<br />
employer used the reassignment as a disguised<br />
attempt to disrupt the seniority benefits of the<br />
bargaining unit. It was stated that the crucial<br />
factor is the job duties, not the name attached,<br />
and that supervision of others was a substantial<br />
and significant change. The grievant was<br />
awarded the position retroactively with back pay<br />
and benefits. The improperly reassigned<br />
employee was to be placed back into her prior<br />
position with the employer ordered not to recoup<br />
any additional wages earned while she was<br />
wrongly reassigned. 419<br />
The State may not hold bidders to qualifications<br />
it desires, only to qualifications that are required.<br />
The State may not go beyond what it sets forth<br />
on the specific position description and generic<br />
classification specification as requirements for<br />
the position. The specification should not have<br />
been measured against additional requirements<br />
stated in the postings: 457 (1992-94 contract)<br />
While an arbitrator can order the state to not<br />
allow a supervisor to perform bargaining unit<br />
work, it would violate Section 17 for an<br />
arbitrator to force the State to fill the bargaining<br />
unit position with the grievant without testimony<br />
concerning the grievant’s seniority and<br />
qualifications. 498 (1992-94 contract)<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