by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

when he was placed back into his former
position due to poor performance. The employer
posted the Auto Mechanic 3 position when it
became vacant in January 1990; the grievant bid
but the promotion was awarded to a junior
employee. The arbitrator found that the grievant
possessed the minimum qualifications found on
the class specification. Section 17.05 was
interpreted to also require proficiency in the
minimum qualifications found on the position
description. Due to the grievant’s performance
while assigned on an interim basis, the arbitrator
found that the employer had not acted in bad
faith, that no purpose would be served by
allowing a probationary period to prove the
grievant’s proficiency, thus the grievance was
denied. 428
The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation posted a
vacancy for a Word Processing 1 position. The
grievant, who had 3 years seniority, was not
selected. A person who had worked as a student
was chosen and in effect was a new hire. The
arbitrator stated that applicants must possess and
be proficient in the minimum qualifications for
the position. The Position Description requires
course work or experience in word processing
equipment. The grievant’s application does not
show that she met this requirement, thus she was
found not to meet the minimum qualifications
for the position posted. The grievance was
denied. 437
The State improperly commingled bidders
categorized under both Article 17.05(A) and (E)
in the interview process for two Systems Analyst
1 positions. Those in (A) must be evaluated and
determined unqualified before consideration of
applicants under (E) takes place. Agency
discretion in scheduling interviews only exists
within each subsection’s group of bidders. 457
(formerly Article 17.04 of 1986 contract)
The Arbitrator rejected the argument that the
grievant did not meet the minimum
qualifications for the Utility Rate Analyst 3
position. The State effectively conceded that the
grievant was minimally qualified by granting her
an interview. 487 (formerly Article 17.04 of
1986 contract)
The Arbitrator determined that the grievant
failed to meet the minimum qualifications for
Project Inspector 2 even though he was senior to
the chosen applicants. The Arbitrator
determined: 1) the grievant failed to meet the
minimum qualifications; 2) the grievant never
held a Project Inspector 1 position; and 3) the
Union failed to provide equivalent evidence of
the Major Worker Characteristics. 593 (1994-97
contract)
Article 17.05 (A)(1) provides that the Employer
fill vacancies with employees who "possess and
are proficient in the minimum qualifications
contained in the classification specification and
the position description". The Arbitrator
determined that the Employer violated Article
17.05(A)(1) because the grievant possessed the
minimum qualifications contained in the
classification specification for the position of
Claims Service Specialist but the Employer did
not award the grievant that position. 614 (1997-
2000 contract)
The Union argued that the other applicant was
prohibited from applying for the posted position
of Carpenter 2 since he was within the
probationary period under Article 17.05(A),
which provides, "Employees serving either in an
initial probationary period or promotional
probationary period shall not be permitted to bid
on job vacancies". The Arbitrator held that the
applicant was not within a probationary period,
but had instead made a lateral transfer.
Therefore, the applicant was not barred from
applying for the available position. 617 (1997-
2000 contract)
The Arbitrator found that evaluation of an
employee is part of the qualifications for a
position, and it could be considered in
determining which applicants to interview. He
also found that the successful applicant’s
evaluation was superior to the grievant’s
evaluation, and he noted that the supervisor
wanted to interview a maximum of five
applicants. The Arbitrator stated that if ODH
wished to restrict the number of qualified
applicants to interview, it had to do so pursuant
to the CBA and not on a “case-by-case basis.”
The Arbitrator found that ODH violated the
CBA when it concluded that the grievant did not
have the requisite qualifications, experience and
education necessary for consideration of the
position. 707
The arbitrator found that the grievant was not
proficient in minimum qualifications of heavy
equipment operation. It was determined that the
employer acted reasonably and did not violate
the agreement in concluding that the grievant did