Rule 18: Dispute Resolution
18:30: GRIEVANCE (Former 18-10)
Complaints of discrimination, harassment or retaliation should not be brought through a grievance under CSR 18-30, but through a formal complaint, although either provides sufficient notice of claims. In re Gallo,(PDF, 1MB) CSB 63-09, 1 (3/17/11).
Under 19-10 B.2.a, employee may appeal agency's failure to address a grievance, which operated as a formal complaint of sexual/racial harassment under CSR 15. In re Gallo(PDF, 1MB), CSB 63-09, 3 (3/17/11).
While an employee may grieve any work review (PEPR) rating, only an “unacceptable” [now only a “failing”] may be directly appealed to the Hearing Office. In re Muhammad(PDF, 47KB), CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11), citing CSR 19-20.B.1.b.
Where agency denied appellant’s grievance of a PEPR rating, appellant must establish the rating negatively affected pay, benefits or status for an appeal to stand. In re Muhammad(PDF, 47KB), CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11).
No aspect of the PEPR program, other than a performance rating, may be grieved or appealed. In re Muhammad(PDF, 47KB), CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11), citing CSR 13-39 C (decided under former 13-50 C).
Career Service Hearing Office lacks jurisdiction to consider appellant’s appeal from agency denial of grievance of “successful” PEPR rating and also as appellant did not allege his pay, benefits or status were affected. In re Muhammad, CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11).
In a grievance appeal, appellant bears the burden to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, both that the specified Agency actions violated CSRs, the City Charter, ordinance relating to the Career Service, executive orders, or written agency policies, and that the specified actions negatively affected her pay, benefits, or status, under CSR 19-20 B.1.a. In re Anderson & Connors(PDF, 400KB), CSA 61-10, 63-10, 66-10 & 67-10, 5 (12/22/10).
Appellant’s use of a complaint form to raise grievance did not justify dismissal of appeal where form gave agency notice of greivable issue, and the agency treated the issue as an appealable grievance. In re Anderson(PDF, 76KB), CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Grievance appeal is not subject to dismissal as untimely where parties presented conflicting facts as to when appellant should be charged with notice of the basis of the appeal. In re Anderson(PDF, 76KB), CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Whether person who took leave action was appellant’s supervisor/manager whose actions could be grieved is a factual issue requiring resolution at hearing. In re Anderson(PDF, 76KB), CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
An employee may grieve a written reprimand, but may not appeal the unfavorable disposition of the grievance, which is exempted from the jurisdiction of the Career Service Hearing Office. In re Black(PDF, 58KB), CSA 16-09 (Order 3/12/09).
The CSB has excluded written reprimands from Career Service Hearing Office jurisdiction. In re Black,(PDF, 58KB) CSA 16-09 (Order 3/12/09).
CSRs provide hearing officers with jurisdiction over grievances to which an agency has failed to respond. In re Luft,(PDF, 121KB) CSB 43-08 (12/12/08).
Implicit within the CSRs is the grant of authority to the hearing officer to order an agency to respond to an employee’s grievance. In re Luft,(PDF, 121KB) CSB 43-08 (12/12/08).
CSRs’ 2006 amendments clarify that an applicant may no longer grieve a determination by the personnel director or designee that she is unqualified for a promotion. In re Connors(PDF, 194KB), CSA 35-06, 3 (Order 8/9/06).
While any performance rating may be challenged through a grievance, only those grievance denials that negatively affect pay, benefits, or status may be appealed. In re Stenke(PDF, 81KB), CSA 14-06, 1 (Order 3/15/06).
Hearing officer is without jurisdiction of appellant’s appeal of a “below expectations” PEPR rating where appellant did not first grieve that evaluation. In re Pfeffer(PDF, 41KB), CSA 134-05 (Order 1/23/06) (decided under former CSR 18-12).
Appellant filed untimely grievance where agency notified him of its failure to give him pay increase for serving in acting capacity in higher job classification in his next paycheck thereafter but he did not file grievance for over three years. In re Gibbons,(PDF, 60KB) CSA 49-05 (Order 8/17/05) (decided under former CSR 18-12).
Appellant’s notice of adverse agency action was proven by his request for pay increase for higher job classification three times after receiving paycheck without pay increase. In re Gibbons(PDF, 60KB), CSA 49-05 (Order 8/17/05) (decided under former CSR 18-12).
Appellant’s failure to timely file his grievance of his allegedly retaliatory “meets expectations” PEPR deprives the hearing officer of jurisdiction to hear the retaliation claim, and “meets expectations” ratings are not appealable. In re Schultz(PDF, 92KB), CSA 78-05, 1-2 (Order 8/15/05) (decided under former CSRs 18-12, 19-10).
Appellant filed untimely grievance over five months after action giving rise to it, depriving hearing officer of jurisdiction over appeal of it. In re Mullen(PDF, 42KB), CSA 72-05 (Order 8/9/05) (decided under former CSR 18-12).