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, CSB 63-09, 1 (3/17/11).
Although appellant did not use the correct procedure for raising a discrimination complaint, her grievance put the agency on notice of her complaint of sexual harassment under CSR 15. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 1 (3/17/11).
Under 19-10 B.2.a, employee may appeal agency's failure to address a grievance where grievance operated as a formal complaint of sexual/racial harassment under CSR 15. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 3 (3/17/11).
While an employee may grieve any work review (PEPR) rating, only a “unacceptable” rating may be directly appealed to the Hearing Office. In re Muhammad, CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11), citing CSR 19-20.B.1.b.
If the grievance of a PEPR rating is denied, appellant must establish the rating negatively affected pay, benefits or status in order for an appeal to stand. In re Muhammad, 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, CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11), citing CSR 13-50 C.
Hearing Office lacks jurisdiction to consider appeal from denial of grievance of “successful” PEPR rating where 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, that the specified Agency actions violated Career Service Rules, the City Charter, ordinance relating to the Career Service, executive orders, or written agency policies, and also has the burden to prove the specified actions negatively affected her pay, benefits, or status, under CSR § 19-20 B.1.a. In re Anderson & Connors, CSA 61-10, 63-10, 66-10 & 67-10, 5 (12/22/10).
Use of a complaint form to raise grievance did not justify dismissal of appeal where form gave agency notice of grievable issue, and the agency itself treated the issue as an appealable grievance. In re Anderson, 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 facts forming the basis of the appeal. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Whether person who took leave action was a supervisor/manager whose actions could be grieved is a factual issue requiring resolution at hearing. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Whether person outside appellant's agency can qualify as 'supervisor/manager' is a factual issue requiring resolution at hearing. In re Anderson, 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 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).
Career Service Rules provide hearing officers with jurisdiction over grievances to which an agency has failed to respond. In re Luft, CSB 43-08 (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, CSB 43-08 (12/12/08).
The 2006 amendments to the Career Service Rules make it clear that an applicant may no longer grieve a determination by the personnel director or designee that she is not qualified for a certain promotion. In re Connors, CSA 35-06, 3 (Order 8/9/06).
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 (Order 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 (Order 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 (Order 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 (Order 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 (Order 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, CSA 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 (Order 8/9/05) (decided under former § 18-12).
OHR Employee Relations Unit
201 W. Colfax Ave., Dept 412
Denver, CO 80202
For general employee relations questions contact:
For ADA questions contact:
To leave a message, please call: