by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

should not have been considered because the
application had not been notarized, and it was
thus incomplete at the time of its submission.
The arbitrator also found that the employer used
worker characteristics which are to be developed
after employment (marked with an asterisk) to
determine minimum qualifications of applicants.
Lastly, neither the successful applicant nor the
grievant possessed the minimum qualifications,
however the employer was found to have held
this against only the grievant. The arbitrator
stated that the employer must treat all applicants
equally. The grievant was awarded the position
along with any lost wages. 396 (see 392)
The grievant applied for a posted Microbiologist
3 position in the Rabies section and was denied
the promotion because the employer found that
she failed to possess the minimum qualifications.
Neither the successful applicant nor the grievant
possessed the minimum qualifications for the
position but this fact was held only against the
grievant. The arbitrator stated that the employer
must treat all applicants equally. The arbitrator
found that he grievant did not possess the
minimum qualifications and that the required
rabies immunization and other abilities could be
acquired after being awarded the position. The
grievant was awarded the position along with
any lost wages. 397 (see 392)
The grievant had over 7 years seniority and
applied for a posted vacancy. She did not receive
the promotion which was given to a more senior
employee from the agency despite the fact that
she was in Section 17.04 applicant group A
(17.05 of 1989 contract) and the successful
bidder was in group D. The employer stated that
the grievant failed to meet the minimum
qualifications and the successful bidder was
demonstrably superior. The arbitrator held that
Article 17 established groupings which must be
viewed independently. Additionally, the contract
applies the demonstrably superior exception only
to junior employees. The employer violated the
contract by considering, simultaneously,
employees from different applicant groups and
applying demonstrable superiority to a senor
employee. The arbitrator found that the grievant
met the minimum qualifications for the vacant
position, but she had since left state service. The
grievance was sustained and the remedy was the
lost wages from the time the grievant would have
been awarded the position until she left state
service. 405
A General Activity Therapist 2 position was
posted for which the grievant bid. The position
listed a valid water safety instructor’s certificate
as a minimum qualification. The grievant did not
possess the certificate and an outside applicant
was selected. The arbitrator found that the
employer improperly posted the position by
using a worker characteristic doesn’t have to be
acquired until after the employee receives the
job. While the arbitrator cautioned that
employees must act timely to become qualified,
the employer can only hold bidders to minimum
qualifications required by the contract. The
grievance was sustained and the grievant was
awarded the position with back pay. 418
The Department of Natural Resources posted a
vacancy and accepted application through June
28, 1989. The applications were evaluated
through August, and a selection was made in
September 1989. The grievant would have no
grievance rights if the 1989 agreement controlled
due to his section 17.05 (1989 agreement)
applicant group status. The arbitrator found that
critical elements of the selection process were
performed under the 1989 agreement, thus it
controlled the matter and the grievance was held
arbitrable, (the right to grieve arose under the
1989 agreement upon notification of nonselection).
The employer was ordered to select
from applicants grouped pursuant to the 1989
agreement. 423
The Bureau of Motor Vehicles posted a vacancy
for a Reproduction Equipment Operator 1
position. The employer chose a junior employee
over the grievant, claiming that he failed to meet
the minimum qualifications. The arbitrator found
that the employer improperly used the semantic
distinction between retrieval, the grievant’s
present position, and reproduction, what the
position called for, rather than the actual job
duties to determine whether the grievant met the
minimum qualifications. The arbitrator stated
that both consist of making copies of microfilm
images on paper. The grievant was found by the
arbitrator to possess the minimum qualifications,
however the employer was found to not have
completed its selection process as the grievant
had not been interviewed. The arbitrator ordered
the selection process re-opened pursuant to
article 17. 427
The grievant was an Auto Mechanic 2 who had
been assigned on an interim basis as an Auto
Mechanic 3 from June until September 1989