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.
she was in Section 17.04 applicant group A<br />
(17.05 of 1989 contract) and the successful<br />
bidder was in group D. The employer stated that<br />
the grievant failed to meet the minimum<br />
qualifications and the successful bidder was<br />
demonstrably superior. The arbitrator held that<br />
Article 17 established groupings which must be<br />
viewed independently. Additionally, the contract<br />
applies the demonstrably superior exception only<br />
to junior employees. The employer violated the<br />
contract <strong>by</strong> considering, simultaneously,<br />
employees from different applicant groups and<br />
applying demonstrable superiority to a senor<br />
employee. The arbitrator found that the grievant<br />
met the minimum qualifications for the vacant<br />
position, but she had since left state service. The<br />
grievance was sustained and the remedy was the<br />
lost wages from the time the grievant would have<br />
been awarded the position until she left state<br />
service. 405<br />
A General Activity Therapist 2 position was<br />
posted for which the grievant bid. The position<br />
listed a valid water safety instructor’s certificate<br />
as a minimum qualification. The grievant did not<br />
possess the certificate and an outside applicant<br />
was selected. The arbitrator found that the<br />
employer improperly posted the position <strong>by</strong><br />
using a worker characteristic which doesn’t have<br />
to be acquired until after the employee receives<br />
the job. While the arbitrator cautioned that<br />
employees must act timely to become qualified,<br />
the employer can only hold bidders to minimum<br />
qualifications required <strong>by</strong> the contract. The<br />
grievance was sustained and the grievant was<br />
awarded the position with back pay. 418<br />
The Department of Natural Resources posted a<br />
vacancy and accepted application through June<br />
28, 1989. The applications were evaluated<br />
through August, and a selection was made in<br />
September 1989. The grievant would have no<br />
grievance rights if the 1989 agreement controlled<br />
due to his section 17.05 (1989 agreement)<br />
applicant group status. The arbitrator found that<br />
critical elements of the selection process were<br />
performed under the 1989 agreement, thus it<br />
controlled the matter and the grievance was held<br />
arbitrable, (the right to grieve arose under the<br />
1989 agreement upon notification of nonselection).<br />
The employer was ordered to select<br />
from applicants grouped pursuant to the 1989<br />
agreement. 423<br />
The Bureau of Motor Vehicles posted a vacancy<br />
for a Reproduction Equipment Operator 1<br />
position. The employer chose a junior employee<br />
over the grievant, claiming that he failed to meet<br />
the minimum qualifications. The arbitrator found<br />
that the employer improperly used the semantic<br />
distinction between retrieval, the grievant’s<br />
present position, and reproduction, what the<br />
position called for, rather than the actual job<br />
duties to determine whether the grievant met the<br />
minimum qualifications. The arbitrator stated<br />
that both consist of making copies of microfilm<br />
images on paper. The grievant was found <strong>by</strong> the<br />
arbitrator to possess the minimum qualifications,<br />
however the employer was found to not have<br />
completed its selection process as the grievant<br />
had not been interviewed. The arbitrator ordered<br />
the selection process re-opened pursuant to<br />
Article 17. 427<br />
The grievant was an Auto Mechanic 2 who had<br />
been assigned on an interim basis as an Auto<br />
Mechanic 3 from June until September 1989<br />
when he was placed back into his former<br />
position due to poor performance. The employer<br />
posted the Auto Mechanic 3 position when it<br />
became vacant in January 1990; the grievant bid<br />
but the promotion was awarded to a junior<br />
employee. The arbitrator found that the grievant<br />
possessed the minimum qualifications found on<br />
the class specification. Section 17.05 was<br />
interpreted to also require proficiency in the<br />
minimum qualifications found on the position<br />
description. Due to the grievant’s performance<br />
while assigned on an interim basis, the arbitrator<br />
found that the employer had not acted in bad<br />
faith, that no purpose would be served <strong>by</strong><br />
allowing a probationary period to prove the<br />
grievant’s proficiency, thus the grievance was<br />
denied. 428<br />
The Bureau of Workers’ Compensation posted a<br />
vacancy for a Word Processing 1 position. The<br />
grievant, who had 3 years seniority, was not<br />
selected A person who had worked as a student<br />
was chosen and in effect was a new hire. The<br />
arbitrator stated that applicants must possess and<br />
be proficient in the minimum qualifications for<br />
the position. The Position Description requires<br />
course work or experience in word processing<br />
equipment. The grievant’s application does not<br />
show that she met this requirement, thus she was<br />
found not to meet the minimum qualifications<br />
for the position posted. The grievance was<br />
denied. 437<br />
Senior applicants do not have to be equally or<br />
better qualified than other applicants. They must