by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

not meet the minimum qualifications for the
Highway Maintenance Worker 3 position.
However, the arbitrator noted that using a
proficiency test to assess relative skill and ability
was not permitted by the agreement and that the
portion of the employer’s evidence which
included the results of the test was inappropriate.
760
The grievant was employed for over 19 years in
the Information and Technology Division of the
Ohio Bureau of Worker’s Compensation as a
Telecommunications Systems Analyst 3. He,
along with five other employees, applied for a
promotion to the position entitled Information
Technology Consultant 2. Another applicant
(Nelson) was awarded the position despite the
fact that the grievant had more seniority and had
a bachelor’s degree that was pertinent to the
position. Nelson did not meet the minimum
qualifications for the job and lied on his
application when he stated that he possessed an
undergraduate core curriculum in computer
science and an undergraduate degree in math.
The employer argued that the grievant also
falsified his application by stating that he had a
degree in Electrical Engineering when in fact he
had a degree in Electronic Engineering. The
arbitrator found however, that despite the fact the
grievant did falsify his application, he did not
falsify his core curriculum. Nelson’s claim that
he possessed a bachelor’s degree and completed
core course work in computers and technology
represents a more serious misrepresentation of
fact than that of the grievant’s. In addition, the
arbitrator recognized that management has wide
discretion in managing its workforce and
selecting employees for promotion. However,
“the Employer is governed by the rule of
reasonableness and the exercise of its
management rights must be done in the absence
of arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
discretion.” The arbitrator found that the
Employer’s decision to promote Nelson to a
position for which he did not meet the minimum
requirements was arbitrary. 863
The employer did not violate Article 17.05 when
it did not select the grievant for a training officer
position. The successful applicant was found to
be more qualified, based upon documentation
submitted with his application. The grievant did
not provide materials sufficient to prove that he
and the successful applicant were substantially
equal. 912
The Arbitrator held that the Employer’s
evaluation process was reasonable. It could not
be determined that it was tainted with favoritism
or discrimination. It was not administered with
hostility to the Grievants. In all respects, its use
was permitted by the Agreement. The selection
procedure used by the Employer for these
positions had been the subject of intense scrutiny
and development. The element of subjectivity
was reduced by the manner in which the
Employer utilized the interview. By using the
interview process the Employer did not violate
the agreement. The ranking of and scale
assigned by the Employer to education and
experience was not arbitrary. Applicants were
required to take a test to determine the factors of
“qualifications, experience, and education.” The
test had been given previously and had been
taken by some applicants in the past. The action
of the Employer was exceptionally generous to
applicants in that the applicants were awarded
the higher of the two scores they had attained.
The record shows that the selected candidates
were superior to the Grievants in the assessment
and testing process. A claim that the selected
candidates had falsified their applications could
not be shown. Both grievances were denied.
937
While the Grievant claimed to have the
necessary background in research methods in her
summary of her qualifications, the information
contained in her application and resume did not
support her claim. She failed to show any
experience with operational, mathematical,
analytical, or statistical research methods. The
Arbitrator rejected the claim that when the state
denied her an interview for the Planner 3
position and awarded it to someone else, it
engaged in sex and/or age discrimination in
violation of Article 2. A large portion of the
employees in the Emergency Management
Agency are women and three of the top five
leadership positions are held by women .The
Arbitrator held that the Grievant failed to show
that she satisfied the minimum qualifications for
the Planner 3 position when she applied. The
grievance was denied. 938
The Arbitrator held that the state properly
assigned points to the applicants for the
Computer Operator 4 position and selected the
appropriate applicant for the job. The Grievant
was not selected because her score was more
than ten points below that of the top scorer. The
Union argued the Grievant should have been