Where appellants filed their grievances after the deadline, they cannot obtain relief from the agency or in their appeals of its denials of their grievances. In re Osborne et al, CSA 35-18, 36-18, 37-18, 38-18, 3-4 (9/5/18).
In an appeal of a grievance, appellants retain the burden of proof, by a preponderance of the evidence, to prove the agency denials of their grievances were arbitrary, capricious or contrary to rule or law. In re Osborne et al, CSA 35-18, 36-18, 37-18, 38-18, 2 (9/5/18), citing CSR 19-55 C and E; In re Gallo, CSA 63-09 (8/27/10).
Hearing Office has no jurisdiction to resolve a challenge to an FLSA-exempt status, or to order re-classification, as necessary to reverse the agency action. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 3 (6/5/17).
In grievance appeal appellant bears the burden to prove the agency violated a CSR or Charter provision which negatively impacted appellant’s pay, benefits or status. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 2 (6/5/17).
Burden of proof in this forum is inconsistent with FLSA law. In CSA appeal, appellant bears burden of proof in a grievance appeal, while in FLSA exemption case, employer bears burden to prove “plainly and unmistakably” that an exemption applies. In re Bohner, CSA 13-17, 4 (6/5/17), citing FLSA, 29 USCA 213(a)(1); Combs v. Jaguar energy Svcs., LLC, 187 F. Supp.3d 1258 (D.Colo. 2016).
Under CSR 15, an agency has specific obligations when a complaint of discrimination, harassment or retaliation is filed to investigate and take effective, thorough and objective steps to address the complaint. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 2 (3/17/11).
A grievance over a transfer that does not impact an employee's pay, benefits or employment status may not be appealed under 19-10 A.2.b. In re Gallo, CSB 63-09, 3 (3/17/11).
Under 19-10 A.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 “failing” rating may be directly appealed to the Hearing Office. In re Muhammad, CSA 06-11 (Order 2/8/11), citing CSR 19-10(b)(3); CSR 18-40(E)(1).
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 13-50C.
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).
An agency’s denial of a grievance may be appealed if the action violates a career service rule and negatively affects the grievant’s pay, benefits or status. In re Abeyta, CSA 110-09, 2 (Order 2/9/10); CSR 19-10 A.2.b.i.
Where appellant failed to present any evidence supporting his grievance allegation that he was entitled to be awarded his bid for the original graveyard shift based on seniority or otherwise, summary judgment must be granted for the agency on the grievance appeal. In re Abeyta, CSA 110-09, 2 (2/9/10).
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).
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 which form the basis of the appeal. In re Anderson, CSA 102-09, 2 (Order 1/8/10).
Grievance appeal is not subject to dismissal on jurisdictional grounds where parties dispute whether appellant met prerequisites for filing a grievance. 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).
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).
In order to establish jurisdiction over a challenge to the denial of a grievance, appellant must show that he filed a grievance of an action negatively affecting his pay, benefits, or status that violated a rule, Charter provision, executive order, or policy. In re Morgan, CSA 63-08, 17 (4/6/09); CSR 19-10 A.2.b.
Appellants' claim that the grieved action violated a rule and negatively affected their pay established hearing office jurisdiction over their grievance appeal. In re Vasquez & Lewis, CSA 08-09 & 09-09 (Order 3/11/09).
Career Service Rules clearly provide the hearing officer with jurisdiction over grievances to which an agency has failed to respond. In re Luft, CSB 43-08 (12/12/08).
Implicit in this rule is the grant of authority to the hearing officer to order an agency to respond to a grievance. In re Luft, CSB 43-08 (12/12/08).
In appeal of agency's failure to respond to grievance, hearing officer correctly determined he did not retain jurisdiction over the grievance after the agency responded to the grievance. In re Luft, CSB 43-08 (12/12/08).