18-40: Grievance Procedure
Appellant's failure to use official grievance form did not deprive her of the remedy of an appeal where the form used gave the agency notice of a grievable issue that it treated as an appealable grievance. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Use of a complaint form to raise grievable issue did not deprive appellant of right to appeal agency action where form gave agency notice of grievable issue that it did not resolve in appellant's favor. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Dispute as to when appellant had notice of facts which form the basis of her appeal raises fact issue that requires a hearing. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Career Service Rules provide hearing officers with jurisdiction over grievances to which an agency has failed to respond. In re Luft, CSA 43-08 (CSB 12/12/08).
Implicit within the Career Service Rules is the grant of authority to the hearing officer to order an agency to respond to an employee’s grievance. In re Luft, CSA 43-08 (CSB 12/12/08).
While any performance rating may be challenged by means of a grievance, only those matters that negatively affect pay, benefits, or status may be appealed if a grievance is denied. In re Stenke, CSA 14-06, 1 (3/15/06).
Hearing officer is without jurisdiction of an appeal of a “below expectations” PEPR rating if appellant did not first file a grievance of that evaluation.
In re Pfeffer, CSA 134-05 (1/23/06) (decided under former §18-12).
Appeal filed three years after agency action is untimely when appellant received paycheck in Nov. 2001 giving him notice of agency’s failure to give him 6.9% pay increase for serving in acting capacity in higher job classification.
In re Gibbons, CSA 49-05 (8/17/05) (decided under former § 18-12).
Appellant’s notice of adverse agency action was proven by his request for pay increase three times after receiving paycheck without 6.9% raise for higher job classification. In re Gibbons, CSA 49-05 (8/17/05) (decided under former § 18-12).
Appellant’s failure to timely file his grievance of his “meets expectations” PEPR he claimed was retaliatory deprives the hearing officer of jurisdiction to hear the retaliation claim. In re Schultz, CSA 78-05, 2 (8/15/05) (decided under former §§ 18-12, 19-10).
Where appellant claims that a PEPR rating was retaliatory, a grievance filed based on that claim is not appealable unless appellant complies with the grievance procedure under Rule 18. In re Schultz, 78-05 (Order 8/15/05).
When appellant filed his second-step grievance late, hearing officer was without jurisdiction to hear appeal. In re Schultz, CSA 78-05 (8/15/05) (decided under former § 18-12).
Grievance filed over five months after action giving rise to grievance is untimely, and therefore hearing officer has no jurisdiction over appeal of grievance. In re Mullen, CSA 72-05 (8/9/05) (decided under former § 18-12).
Dispute resolution
18-40 E.1
An employee may grieve a written reprimand, but may not appeal the unfavorable disposition of the grievance even though there is no alternative forum for appeal. In re Black, CSA 16-09 (Order 3/12/09).
The Board has excluded written reprimands from hearing office jurisdiction. In re Black, CSA 16-09 (Order 3/12/09).