by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

for a new DCS Assessment. The union and
employees will be notified if a new assessment is
implemented. Betsy Stewart and Robert Watts
will be placed at management’s discretion into a
DCS position once OBM gives approval. They
will begin their probationary period then. They
will begin receiving compensation as a DCS
beginning with the pay period 04/13/08. The
placement of Betsy Stewart and Robert Watts is
not precedent setting nor does it violate Article
17. 994
17.07 – Applications
The grievant signed a letter accepting his current
position which stated that he did not have the
right to bid for a position in District 11. 290
There are at least two plausible interpretations of
Article 17.04. Appendix J was virtually
undiscussed in negotiations. The majority of the
exhibits support the State’s position that the
grievant was a Central office staff member and
not a member of the Northeast office that would
allow him to bid on a job position or promotion
there. Since the interpretation of “within” can be
read several different ways, the arbitrator fell
back on the past practice of the Agency. In the
past an employee given bidding rights in the
Central Office, District 13 would not be allowed
to bid for a position in District 6. The grievant
was only assigned to the Central Office, not
permanently placed in this District so the
grievant was not “within” either District 11 or
the Northeast region permanently. The grievant
was also given notice that his position was not
longer a District 11 position. On the original
acceptance form he wrote in his own hand the
condition “with bidding rights in District 11.”
This condition was not approved and the
grievant later signed an acceptance form that did
not include this condition. There have been no
changes since the grievant signed this form that
would lead the grievant to believe he now has a
right to bid in District 11. 290
The grievant was not selected for a promotion.
The employer argued that the grievant did not
fall within a “similar or related series” as
required by Article 17.04 of the Agreement.
Prior to the arbitration the employer stipulated
that the grievant was in the “similar or related
class series” but was not “within the office,
institution, or geographic district of the Agency
(see Appendix J) where the vacancy is located.”.
290
The employer transferred an employee to another
area that was understaffed. The position was
permanent and full-time. When filling such
positions the Agreement clearly, unmistakably
and unreservedly required that the position be
posted. The employees are permitted to bid. The
qualified employee with the most State seniority
was deprived of the opportunity for being
awarded the position under Section 17.05 of the
Agreement. Employees must be provided the
opportunity to exercise their rights to bid on a
vacancy before a transfer may be effected. 349
It was decided that the grievant was not a new
State employee but she was a new employee of
the agency. According to the Civil Service
Rules, employees for the State maintain certain
benefits when they move from job to job, but the
Union did not reference specific language
showing that an employee moving from one state
agency to another must always move at the same
or greater wage rate. The new agency considered
the grievant a new hire and it was generally
accepted that she had a 120-day probationary
period and presumably, after successful
completion, she would move up a step per
Section 36.02 of the Agreement. The grievant’s
claim that she merely transferred to the new
agency was not supported. Article 17 of the
Agreement defines promotion as moving to a
higher pay range and a lateral transfer as a
movement to a different position at the same pay
range. It does not specify that a lateral transfer
from one agency to another agency within the
State must be at the same step within the same
pay range. The employer did not transfer the
grievant she applied for a vacant position. 360
17.08 – Transfers
(Section 17.07, 1986 Agreement)
The resignation of an OBES Claims Examiner 2
created a vacancy which the employer did not
post, but instead transferred in a Claims
Examiner 2 from an office outside the district.
The transferred employee received a new
Position Control Number, but not the one
vacated by the employee who resigned. A
violation of the contract was conceded by the
employer and the sole issue was the appropriate
remedy. The arbitrator ordered the position in
question to be vacated and posted for bids. The
transferred employee was allowed to remain in
the position until the status of her application