Local 34
Summary of Arbitration Awards

1986 to the Present

This Local 34 arbitration summary covers all arbitrations from the first in 1986 to the present. In that time the Union and the University have met in the arbitration forum 39 times.

Each summary is merely an overview of the critical issues in each case and is not intended to replace the Award itself. Therefore, no one should rely exclusively on the summary but should utilize all resources (Contract, Supervisors, Labor Relations Representatives, etc.) when making operational decisions. Contact Labor Relations at 432-9822 if you wish to discuss an Award or obtain a copy of a given Award.

The summary is organized from the most recent Award to the oldest and each Award is identified by a reference number which corresponds to the date the Award was issued and an internal Labor Relations number.

Summaries

95/12/08-case #039

This case reviewed the merits of the case first heard by the Arbitrator on the issue of arbitrability
(see Award dated 94/05/20-case #031).

The grievant claimed that his past University service credit should have required the University to hire him above the classification minimum salary. The University maintained that contract language, prior negotiating history, and inconclusive past practices were reasons to reject the grievant's claim.

The Arbitrator found in favor of the Union, acknowledging that this requirement was not expressly stated in the Agreement, but she concluded that enough similar instances had occurred to dictate a governing past practice.

95/11/22-case #038

The Grievant was determined to be correctly classified as an Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade C. She was seeking an upgrade to Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D.

95/03/30-case #037

The Yale University Health Services, after an exhaustive feasibility study, decided to outsource its medical laboratory services. This resulted in the layoff of 5 Clinical Technologists.

The Union challenged the contracting decision, alleging that the University's decision to outsource was arbitrary, and consequently no layoff could result from it. The Union further argued that the University was restricted from subcontracting by the layoff article which says that a layoff cannot take place if there is a "...reasonable alternative." The Union asked as a remedy that the Lab be returned to the YUHS.

The Arbitrator agreed with the University in her ruling that the layoff article does not limit the University's right to subcontract. The question of layoff, and whether there are reasonable alternatives to a Staff Member's layoff, like transfer to another job, come into play after the University has made a decision to discontinue the work of Staff Members, even through a decision to subcontract services. The Arbitrator also found that the layoff did not otherwise violate the Agreement.

95/02/28-case #036

The Office of Professional Services, after moving into a new facility that combined many of its work units, sought to standardize the schedules of the employees. The employees grieved Management's decisions in setting the schedules, in large part citing past practices as the basis for their claims.

The Arbitrator split her opinion, finding that the Department violated the Agreement in some of the cases by not sufficiently taking employees' considerations into account when balancing these against the work requirements. She ordered the Department to reassess the scheduling decisions and retained jurisdiction over the corrective process. Her remedy did continue to allow the Department to address its operational concerns in setting schedules.

95/05/08-case #035

This grievance protested the University's employment of temporary employees in the Office of Professional Services (OPS). The Union claimed that their employment had exceeded contract limitations and sought remedies not only for alleged current violations but also past ones. The Union asked the arbitrator to order the hiring of 14 new positions, the equivalent, it said, of the temporary hours being worked.

The Arbitrator split her decision, finding that some temporary employment violated the terms of the Agreement, but she correctly observed that the University has options in resolving the problem and cannot be compelled to create new positions. She ordered the University to remedy the violations within 30 days of her award.

94/09/24-case #034

This Promotion and Transfer arbitration reviewed the University's selection of one internal C&T candidate over another for a Library Services Assistant IV position in the Yale Center for British Art.

The Arbitrator observed that the University's standard is a "relative ability" clause, and in applying such a standard, is permitted to consider a candidate's qualifications beyond the minimum. So, it was appropriate for the University to consider the successful applicant's BA in English and his advanced degrees in Library Science and English Literature in judging him the most qualified candidate, since these qualifications were relevant to the position, in spite of the fact that these degrees were not required to qualify for the position.

This arbitrator also ruled that a candidate need not be more qualified in all three areas of "skills, qualifications and experience" in order to determine that a "significant difference" exists making one candidate superior to another. This finding contradicted a long standing Union premise that superiority in all three areas was essential to establishing a "significant difference" between candidates. (Ref: Article XVII, Sections 7 and 8)

94/08/23-case #033

Three grievants in this case all sought upgrades in their positions in the Office of Professional Services from Account Assistant III, Salary Grade C, to Account Assistant IV, Salary Grade D. These jobs were generally referred to as "Patient Representatives." They all began the jobs at different times, but generally performed the same duties.

The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the upgrade, determining that their jobs had changed and were more correctly classified as Account Assistant IV.

94/06/12-case #032

The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the University in determining that this grievant was correctly classified as an Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade C, rather than as a Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D. This case examined the degree of change that is necessary in order to qualify for the higher classification. He noted that this case was close, and that future evolution of the incumbent's job could easily raise it to the next level.

94/05/20-case #031

The grievant filed his grievance over his starting salary two and one half years after he was hired. He was claiming that past University credit should have required him to be hired above the classification minimum.

The University rejected the grievance based on late filing. The Union claimed it to be timely for a variety of reasons, including the complexity of the salary administration process and a claim that the grievant was unaware of the facts giving rise to his grievance.

The Arbitrator, noting that the case was an extremely close call, ruled in favor of the Union on the threshold issue of arbitrability, citing the lack of a definitive procedure for notifying the employee and/or the Union of initial salary and seniority determinations, the fact that the alleged violation was continuing, and the general rule that arbitrability is favored where there is uncertainty.

94/03/30-case #030

The University hired an external candidate for a Financial Assistant III, Salary Grade C, position, bypassing an internal applicant who had applied and interviewed for the position. Local 34 argued that the process was flawed in that the University failed to demonstrate that the selected applicant was the most qualified, or that the differences between her and the internal candidate were "significant" as required by the Agreement. The Union also claimed that the rejection letter was not specific enough, and that fact, consequently, should be reason for the grievant to attain the job.

The Arbitrator, in finding for the University, determined that the hiring supervisors had correctly assessed the successful applicant as having significantly better qualifications with respect to her computer skills (i.e., working with Lotus and Excel spreadsheets), and her communication skills, which they judged primarily through the interview process. The Arbitrator observed, in agreement with part of the Union's position, that the candidates were substantially equal in most of the criteria set out in the job requirements. However, he determined that the areas of communication and computer literacy were duties central to performance of this job, and determined that the external candidate's superiority in these areas were proper justification for the University's selection decision.

Echoing a precedent established in earlier promotion and transfer arbitrations, the Arbitrator also observed that the remedy for a deficient rejection letter should be for the University to write a new one, if the grievant so desired, rather than awarding the job to the grievant.

94/03/07-case #029

In denying two job classification appeals the Arbitrator held:

(a) The grievant's position in the Development Office was more correctly classified as a Financial Assistant III, Salary Grade C rather than Financial Assistant IV, Salary Grade D.

(b) The grievant's position in the School of Management was more correctly classified as a Financial Assistant III, Salary Grade C rather than Financial Assistant IV, Salary Grade D.

The Arbitrator emphasized two key points relative to the review of change in an incumbent's job. He noted first that any changes that occur after the Department of Human Resources' audit review are beyond the scope of the arbitrator's authority to include such changes in his consideration. Also, an incumbent who accepts a new position, as this grievant did, cannot later argue that the job was incorrectly classified at the outset if she had never protested the grading of the job when she first accepted it. In this case, the job had to be considered correctly classified when she promoted to it, and that defined job became the basis from which change in job content is measured.

93/10/01- case #028

The Arbitrator ruled that the grievants were more properly classified as Acquisitions Assistant III, Salary Grade D in the Social Science Library rather than Acquisitions Assistant II, Salary Grade C.

93/10/01-case #027

The Arbitrator ruled that the grievants were more properly classified as Acquisitions Assistant II, Salary Grade C in the Sterling Memorial Library rather than Acquisitions Assistant I, Salary Grade B. The Arbitrator noted that in this case, factor levels initially claimed by the incumbents were initially verified as correct by the Human Resources Department. He said that subsequent audit reviews that downgraded these factor levels were inconsistent with those early evaluations, and he concluded that the University's arguments for denying the upgrades were consequently without merit.

93/10/01-case #026

In three separate job classification appeals, the Arbitrator held:

a) The grievant was upgraded from Library Assistant III, Salary Grade C, in the Interlibrary Loan Office, to Library Services Assistant IV, Salary Grade D. He noted that his decision weighed the cumulative effect or balance of both compensible factor levels as well as representative duties.

(b) The grievant was properly classified as Catalog Assistant III, Salary Grade C in the Divinity School Library. She was seeking an audit upgrade to Catalog Assistant IV, Salary Grade D.

(c) The grievant was properly classified as Acquisitions Assistant II, Salary Grade C in the Divinity School Library. She was seeking an audit upgrade to Acquisitions Assistant III, Salary Grade D.

93/09/23-case #025

(a) This case involved a job classification appeal where the grievant sought an upgrade from Printing Assistant I, Salary Grade B, to Printing Assistant II, Salary Grade C. He was employed by the Yale Law School duplicating center. He had initially asked for an audit when he was still classified as a Duplicating Machine Operator, Salary Grade A, in that department. He was upgraded to Printing Assistant I, but grieved because he thought his upgrade did not go high enough.
The upgrade was denied. The Arbitrator determined that the Grievant was appropriately classified as Printing Assistant I.

(b) This arbitration was over a job classification appeal where the grievant sought an upgrade from Printing Assistant I, Salary Grade B, to Printing Assistant II, Salary Grade C. He was employed by the Yale Printing Service.

The upgrade was denied. The Arbitrator determined that the Grievant was appropriately classified as Printing Assistant I.

93/02/05-case #024

The Grievant was terminated after he abruptly left work, abandoning his assignment as a Psychiatric Assistant at the Yale Psychiatric Institute, after his supervisor spoke to him regarding a matter of discipline. He had been warned that leaving would be an act of insubordination.

The Arbitrator reinstated the grievant, reasoning that his action, although serious enough to warrant severe discipline, was not egregious enough to warrant termination. He determined the Grievant's action to be impetuous rather than premeditated, and this governed his reasoning. However, the reinstatement was without back pay, and in effect was commuted to a 13-month suspension.

93/01/20-case #023

This arbitration examined two disciplinary actions given to the grievant: a suspension for insubordination, and one moth later, his termination for stealing a University issued test probe from a co-worker.

The insubordination charge stemmed from the Grievant's interaction with his supervisors over discussions about his attendance and the proper performance of his duties. The incidents included arguments and repeated failure to follow specific directions. The termination came after the grievant was discovered in possession of a test probe reported missing by the co-worker. This occurred when the co-worker confronted the Grievant about it.

The Arbitrator had to choose between two markedly different versions of the events of each case: the Grievant's version, and the University's version, which was supported by numerous witnesses including some of the Grievant's co-workers. The Arbitrator found the University's version and witnesses to be more credible. She emphasized the point that an employee who steals from his co-workers undermines the trust and confidence of those with whom he works, and this was a factor in her decision that the penalty of termination was appropriate.

92/12/01-case #022

(a) The Arbitrator heard a series of job audit cases, but a threshold issue was whether a change in job content is required in order for an incumbent's job to be upgraded. The University position was that change in content is required, while the Union claimed it was unnecessary to show a change in content. The Union's premise was that the audit system would only evaluate present duties, even if they existed for years, particularly when the job was originally classified. The effect of the Union's argument would have been to provide an avenue where they could alter a negotiated labor grade through the grievance procedure. The Arbitrator found in favor of the University, establishing not only that a substantive change in job content was required for an audit upgrade, but also how a change should be properly measured.

This Arbitrator, as part of this same review, heard seven individual job audit cases referenced as cases (b) through (h) hereinafter.

(b) An Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade C, in the Psychology Department was upgraded to Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D.

(c) An Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade C, in the Section of Adolescent Medicine in the Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, was upgraded to Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D.

(d) An Office Assistant III, Salary Grade C, in the Yale Undergraduate Admissions Office, was upgraded to Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D.

(e) The two grievants had been upgraded to Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade C, in the Department of Ophthalmology. Their upgrades came about as the result of audits filed in January, 1991. They had earlier grieved their initial classifications, as Clinical Receptionists, Salary Grade B, under the new classification system in 1989, but they chose to have the University take a fresh look via a new audit request in 1991.

The issue before the arbitrator was back pay. The grievants claimed retroactivity back to 1989, while the University maintained that back pay was limited to 90 days prior to the 1991 audit. The arbitrator determined that only the 1991 audit was in review in this case, so back pay was limited to 90 days prior to the 1991 audit.

(f) An Office Assistant III, Salary Grade C in Support Services at the Medical School had been upgraded through a job audit from Office Assistant II, Salary Grade B. She grieved the decision, seeking to achieve a further upgrade to Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D. The Arbitrator found that the Grievant was appropriately classified as Office Assistant III.

(g) The Arbitrator confirmed that the University reached the correct decision when it determined that a Secretary II, Salary Grade B, in the University Police Department was properly classified.

(h) A Secretary II, Salary Grade B in the Graduate School Registrar's Office requested a job audit. The Department of Human Resources did not upgrade her job, but determined that it was more correctly described as an Office Assistant II, also in Salary Grade B. The Grievant sought to upgraded to Office Assistant III, Salary Grade C. The Arbitrator determined the Grievant's job to be an Office Assistant III.

92/07/31-case #021

The Grievant was laid off from his position as a caretaker for the School of Forestry's Myers Forest property in Union, Connecticut. He was in a 20 hour per week position.

Involved in the decision making process was a determination that some of the work performed by the grievant could be better handled by contractors or forestry school students. Remaining elements of the work were simply discontinued. All of these factors, the University argued, were consistent with the School's education mission, and also appropriate due to changing conditions in the workplace.

The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the University, citing that it had met its burden of proof under the Agreement's alternative test in Article XVII, Section 1(b) that says layoff is justified if: "...such consequences are carried out for reasons which meet the following requirements:

(i) Such consequences are the result of an actual material change in the conditions affecting the work unit, or in the operation of the work unit involved.

(ii) They are reasonably required for the promotion or preservation of a primary mission or goal of the work unit or the University.

(iii) There is an actual reduction in or change in the nature of the work to be performed in the work unit.

91/09/19-case #020

The Grievant was reduced from 37.5 hours to 20 hours in her Registrar position in the Computer Science Department after it decided, in reaction to budget constraints, to close the Registrar's office for one half of the work day. The University attempted to justify this action under the layoff provisions by explaining that the Department had chosen to discontinue the work of the grievant for the time period the office was closed.

Ruling for the Union, the Arbitrator determined that the standard justifying layoff when "the service performed by the Staff Member is to be discontinued" could only work when all of the Staff Member's work is discontinued, not just part. He suggested that other criteria in the contract might have justified the reduction in hours, but since no evidence supporting such a claim was presented, he reinstated the Grievant's hours.

91/03/11-case #19

The grievant, an Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade C in the Athletics Division's Sports Information Department sought an upgrade to Senior Administrative Assistant, Salary Grade D.

In this case, as part of the audit process, the University had directed the Compensation Department to review and issue a new decision after a grievance meeting was held on the case. Their new decision concluded that their first one was correct. The Union argued at arbitration that such an order compels the Compensation Department to change its decision. The University disagreed, taking the position that the contract required a review that could confirm the original decision, if warranted.

The upgrade was awarded. However, the Arbitrator confirmed that the University's posture was correct and a grievance answer calling for a new decision does not automatically mean the job must be upgraded.

91/03/05-case #018

This arbitration was over a job classification appeal where the grievant, a Secretary I, Salary Grade A in the Political Science Department sought an upgrade to Secretary II, Salary Grade B.

The upgrade was awarded. There were no ancillary issues.

91/01/03-case #017

The Grievant was turned down for a Clinical Receptionist position and grieved the hiring decision. During the grievance process, it was determined that she had qualified for the position and should have been selected, but circumstances changed in that in the meanwhile, she had secured another job and no longer sought this one. The Union continued to pursue the grievance to arbitration seeking a back pay award because the Grievant was unemployed from the point where she was turned down to when she secured another position.

The University claimed she was not entitled to back pay because she failed to mitigate her damages. At an earlier time, the Grievant had elected layoff status in lieu of returning to a former position due to personal reasons. That layoff status resulted in her unemployment prior to the above mentioned selection decision. Her own actions had created the circumstance.

The Arbitrator ruled that the Grievant was under no obligation to take action in advance of the hiring decision to mitigate damages, only to do so after she was turned down. He explained this ruling in legal terminology by saying "...there is no duty to mitigate damages before there is a breach of contract. The duty comes about after the breach."

91/01/02-case #016

The Union alleged that the University had been hiring too many new employees above the labor grade minimums, exceeding the formula imposed by the contract with respect to how relevant and related experience would be credited in the calculation. The grievance was filed November 16, 1989 and protested the starting salaries of 146 employees hired between January 15, 1989 and September 15, 1989. Local 34 sought as part of its remedy an order to upgrade all Local 34 incumbents' salaries to match the average percentage of the hires above minimum.

The University argued, among other points, that such a remedy would exceed the arbitrator's authority. Any remedy would have to be restricted to adjustment of the alleged calculation errors. Furthermore, the University maintained that the Union was untimely in filing a grievance significantly more than 28 days after the Union was aware of the hiring salary calculations. The Union was routinely notified of starting salaries as hires were made.

The Arbitrator agreed with the University position that a remedy adjusting incumbent salaries would exceed his authority. Also, he found that any alleged violation that occurred more than 28 days prior to the grievance filing was untimely challenged and also beyond his jurisdiction. He did, however, order the parties to revise the notification procedure and forms which had not been adjusted to conform with the 1988 Agreement.

90/08/31-case #015

The Grievant filed an application for the posted job near the end of the fourteen-day posting period. Her application arrived at Human Resources after the posting period ended, and it was forwarded to the hiring supervisor. Meanwhile, the hiring supervisor, unaware of the grievants application, conducted interviews and made a final selection decision of another candidate. The supervisor never interviewed or even met the grievant. The Union grieved seeking to place the grievant in the job.

During the grievance process, the University offered to settle the case by reconstructing the selection process and giving the grievant the opportunity to be interviewed and considered. The Union rejected the offer and proceeded to Arbitration, still seeking to place her in the job. The University argued at the hearing that the only remedy the Arbitrator could conceivably order would be to allow an interview of the grievant. He agreed, and issued a bench decision that an arbitrator's proper role is to review what the employer has done to determine if it complies with the contract. In this case, there was no selection decision to review, only a decision as to whether the Grievant should have been in the applicant pool.

The Arbitrator ordered the University to "turn back the clock" and consider the grievant. In his opinion, the applicant made timely application for the job because she had clearly submitted her application before the job was closed. Any delays in the transmittal process, whether through oversight or, as in this case, due to mail delays, are the burden and responsibility of the employer.

As a postscript, the grievant was subsequently interviewed and hired for the position.

90/06/26-case #014

The Arbitrator ruled that the Union had no basis in the Contract to bring forward a dispute to change the labor grade for the Psychiatric Assistant classification.

The Arbitrator found that during negotiations for the 1988 Agreement, the subject job description was slotted into Grade C. An appeal procedure for the job evaluation system only permits employees to claim that their specific duties are better represented by another, usually higher graded, classification. The contract does not allow the Union to seek adjustment of negotiated labor grades through the grievance procedure.

90/02/10-case #013

This grievance and arbitration studied the selection decision for a Grade D Library Services Assistant in the Art and Architecture Library. The selected candidate was deemed by the University to be the most qualified candidate, meeting the test that there were superior "significant differences" in his skills, qualifications and experience as compared to the Grievant. The University emphasized the demonstrated ability to perform complicated bibliographic searching.

The Arbitrator ruled for the Union, finding that, based on an obscure admission by the successful candidate at the hearing that he thought his card catalog experience was deficient, the successful candidate was not minimally qualified for the position as posted. She determined that excellence in another area could not overcome this deficiency.

89/10/23-case #012

The Grievant in this case had been absent because he had minor surgery. After communicating with his supervisor about a specific return to work date, the employee failed to return, and did not further contact his supervisor to explain why. Five days passed, during which time the supervisor polled the department to see if the missing employee had called in and left any messages. He determined that no messages were left. The employee was terminated, or "...deemed to have voluntarily resigned..." per the language of Article V, Section 1(d) of the Agreement, which requires the employee to call in within five days in order to preserve employment status.

The cited language, however, has a caveat for "...unusual circumstances...", and on this basis, the Arbitrator found for the Union and reinstated the Grievant. She determined that his alleged physical incapacity was an unusual circumstance, and in light of that, said that the University should have gone to greater lengths to ascertain the reasons for the Grievant's absence, particularly because it was aware of the likely underlying cause, the minor surgery.

88/12/19-case #011

The Grievant was reduced from 37.5 hours to 20 hours per week as a result of changed work requirements in the lab in which she worked, some in particular attributed to a particular professor who would no longer be working in that lab.

The Arbitrator split his decision, finding that the University had justified a reduction to 30 hours per week. The Union successfully showed that, while the work that was supposed to be associated with the changed conditions amounted to 17.5 hours per week, it actually consumed only 7.5 hours per week.

87/04/06-case #010

The grievant, with four years of seniority with the University, was passed over for a promotion to Administrative Specialist in her work unit in favor of another internal candidate with less seniority. The successful candidate had 5 months of University service, all in the same work unit in a lower graded position. The Union claimed that there was no significant differences between the two candidates and argued that seniority should prevail.

The Arbitrator, rejecting the University's claims that it had hired the most qualified applicant, criticized the procedure used, finding that it was not conducted in sufficient depth to reach such a conclusion. There was no interview of the successful candidate, because the supervisor relied on the preceding five months of working together as the equivalent of the interview, and this contributed to the arbitrator's conclusion that the selection process was conducted in a "remarkably casual and unprofessional" manner. He also remarked that the written selection evaluation completed by the supervisor was "patently useless" because it relied on the written applications and resumes to assess required skills without attempting to make a realistic and meaningful assessment of the experience through interviews and reference checking.

As in previous promotion and transfer arbitrations, the rejection letter was determined to be inaccurate, and the Union sought to prevail in this proceeding based on this point. Agreeing with earlier awards, the Arbitrator said that this defect would not be sufficient alone for the grievant to prevail. However, he cited the inaccurate letter as an indication of the supervisor's inability to articulate significant differences between the applicants.

87/02/25-case #009

The Classics Department sought to hire a Senior Administrative Assistant and selected the junior of two internal applicants. The senior applicant filed this grievance, claiming that there were "no significant differences" between her and the successful candidate. In fact, in the letter telling her she was not getting the job, she was politely told that she and the other candidates "...show clear claims for promotion..." and that the successful candidate more closely met the department's special needs. In particular, this was later identified as an interest in Classics.

In ruling for the Union, the Arbitrator found that the hiring supervisor had a poor command of the key elements and subsequent requirements for the position, and in fact based the hiring decision on subjective judgements unrelated to the stated requirements. The Arbitrator also criticized the University's argument at the hearing that the rejection letter was inaccurate and should have said the grievant was unqualified for the position. He noted that the University has an obligation to issue accurate rejection letters since otherwise, it would be allowed to: "...hide the true reasons behind a facade of polite inaccuracies" and then the promotion and transfer article "...becomes incapable of rational application."

87/02/17-case #008

The Council of Engineering had experienced a decline in the volume of work it had available for its draftsman/illustrator. This change had occurred gradually over several years, and was due in large part to changing technology, specifically, the advent of computer graphics and computer aided design. The Department elected to reduce his hours accordingly.

Under the Local 34 Agreement, an involuntary hours reduction is regarded the same as any other layoff and must be justified under the contract. The Arbitrator ruled that the Department appropriately met its obligations under the Agreement (i.e., the three criteria specified in Article XVII, Section 2(b) and ruled in the University's favor.

87/02/06-case #007

A position of Senior Administrative Assistant, reporting to the Master of one of the Colleges, was awarded to the less senior of two applicants. The University's decision was based on the judgement of three faculty members who determined that she was the best qualified candidate with respect to necessary, job-related, personal characteristics and interpersonal skills.

The Arbitrator found in favor of the Union and awarded the job to the grievant because he determined that there was no "significant difference" between the two candidates with respect to the combined requirements for the position. He noted that while personal characteristics were a legitimate part of the requirements, there was no indication in the job description and posting that would suggest greater emphasis in this area was required. The Grievant's longer and more specific work history could not be overwhelmed by the judgement made over personal characteristics. Determining, then, that the candidates were generally equal, the Arbitrator awarded the job to the Grievant, the senior of the two.

87/01/22-case #006

In this case, the Economic Growth Center posted an Administrative Specialist position. Four internal candidates were considered. After one of the four was selected, the two grievants protested. Before their grievances were heard, the University advised the Union that the successful applicant had withdrawn from consideration, and that the opening was cancelled. Regardless, a Peer Review Hearing, the first grievance stage at the time, was convened and found the two grievants and the previously selected candidate equally qualified but was unable to decide who should have been successful. Shortly thereafter, the Department offered the job to the 4th of the original candidates who declined the offer. Shortly after that, the Department again said that the position was cancelled.
At issue were two grievances: an appeal stemming from the Peer Review Hearing decision and a challenge to the University's cancellation of the position. The contract at that time provided a mechanism whereby the Union could challenge the elimination of a position that did not have an incumbent.

The Arbitrator determined that the University violated the agreement by 1) failing to offer the position to one of the two grievants; 2) by failing to comply with the procedural dictates of Article XVI governing Promotion and Transfers; and 3) by its hostile, discriminatory treatment of the grievants. She observed that the University was obligated to observe the outcome of the Peer Review Hearing and offer the position to the most senior of those determined to be equally qualified, in spite of the Peer Review Committee failing to state that conclusion. She also concluded the University's actions were discriminatory and relied on this finding to order the position reinstated.

87/01/12-case #005

Sterling Memorial Library determined that its Photographic Services Unit, which provided copy and other reproduction services to the Library and its patrons, should be closed because it had begun to suffer financial deficits and declining sales volumes. It elected to purchase these services from other University and external sources. The decision to close resulted in transfer opportunities for eight of the nine incumbents, and the layoff of one part-time employee. Numerous meetings, some involving employees and Union representatives, took place to review alternatives to closing the Unit.

The Union wanted the Arbitrator to reconstruct the closed unit and to order the hiring back of the nine employees, claiming that Staff Member views were not given "substantial consideration" and that the University had "reasonable alternatives" to closing the unit.

The Arbitrator found that, in spite of it not agreeing to the employee suggestions regarding the Photographic Services Unit, the Library had given the required consideration of the Union and employee views prior to implementation. Also, he determined that the University had no reasonable alternative to transferring the work and affecting the employees with transfers and layoff. In reaching his decision, the Arbitrator relied heavily on the Management Rights expressed in Article XXXVIII of the Agreement.

87/01/05-case #004

The Department of Psychology posted and filled a position for an Assistant in Research whose duties would include interviewing women for a study in health and nutrition during pregnancy. It selected an internal candidate who had 1 1/3 years working for Yale as opposed to the Grievant who had 5 years of service. Both candidates were in layoff status.

The successful candidate was chosen on the basis of her interviewing experience and specific training in this area, her possession of the desired BS in Psychology, and her demonstrated warmth and interest during the interview.

The grievant also had a BS, but in Health Sciences rather than Psychology. During the interview, she stated she was looking for "any job", did not ask specific questions about the job and appeared uninterested in the position.

In ruling for the University, the Arbitrator determined that the hiring interviewers' assessment of the candidates' warmth, interest and motivation in the hiring process could be used as criteria in making the hiring decision because these attributes were relevant to the position. He also ruled that managerial employees can be used as "screeners" in the hiring process, and for example, the Principle Investigator in this case was not required to personally conduct the interview to which layoff candidates are entitled. Also in this case, the issue of rejection letters was again addressed, with this arbitrator confirming that an incomplete letter does not warrant reversal of the hiring decision.

86/12/31-case #003

The Grievant and two other internal applicants applied for a Library Services Assistant position in Sterling Memorial Library. After a screening and interview process, the job was offered to one of the other internal candidates (candidate A) who was subsequently removed from the position when it was realized that she did not have one of the posted qualifications. This occurred as a result of a grievance filed by "B". The job was then awarded to "B". Eight days later, "B" withdrew from the job, and the Library reposted the position. As a result of that selection process, another internal candidate (candidate C) was awarded the job. "C" had more seniority than the grievant and also enjoyed preferred rights as a layoff candidate.

The grievant claimed that he should have been selected as the successful bidder from the first posting, citing that he was the only other candidate who applied within the first fourteen-day posting period.

The Arbitrator denied the grievance, finding that the fourteen-day posting period was not a limitation on the hiring process, but existed to ensure that potential applicants would have adequate notice. He also found there to be no limitation on the University's right to repost a position, and no implied obligation on the University to fill a position.

A secondary issue of a timeliness claim brought by the Union in this case alleging that University failed to timely schedule grievance meetings was also dismissed by the Arbitrator. He found that the Union's actions in cooperating in the scheduling process barred them from later claiming the delay violated the Agreement.

86/05/21-case #002

A department posted an Administrative Assistant position and ultimately selected an external candidate who had been working as a temporary employee in the department for a number of months essentially performing the duties of the position. The Grievant was also employed in the same department and applied for the position. The posting included a specific 40wpm typing requirement and called for a minimum of 2 years' experience. The grievant's typing speed exceeded 40wpm, and she had more than 2 years of related experience. The successful applicant's typing speed was less than 40 wpm, and the Arbitrator ultimately determined that she had less than two years of related experience.

The hiring supervisor's argument, that excellence in other areas superseded the posted minimum requirements in determining that the hired candidate was the most qualified, failed to persuade the Arbitrator. In finding for the Union, the Arbitrator criticized the hiring process which she described as "flawed" and determined that, like in the prior arbitration, the selected candidate failed to meet the stated minimum qualifications and therefore could not be a successful candidate.

The grievant was awarded back pay, but not the position, because there were two other internal candidates with "layoff" status who may have both qualified as candidates superior to the grievant.

86/02/17-case #001

A department posted a job opening for an Administrative Assistant which included a requirement for typing 70 wpm. The Grievant applied for the position, was interviewed, and according to Human Resource records, had a typing skill measured at 80 wpm.

At the conclusion of their selection process, the hiring supervisors judged another candidate as superior to the grievant in a variety of areas, particularly with respect to her intuitive and interpersonal skills although this candidate's typing speed was only measured at 43 wpm. The Supervisors maintained that the superiority of this candidate in other areas overwhelmed the typing requirement and admitted that the typing requirement of 70 wpm was included to discourage applicants and to hold back the size of the applicant pool.

The arbitrator, noting that this was the first case heard under the new Local 34 contract, elected to rule on the most narrow issue he could, and determined that since the selected candidate did not meet the minimum requirements for the position (the typing speed) she could not be the successful candidate. He awarded the job to the grievant based on his review of materials in the record that he said demonstrated her qualifications for the job.

s to mislead his supervisors as to his whereabouts, including reporting a false location when asked via radio to report his location while the supervisor had the officer under surveillance.

The Arbitrator determined that while the grievant's behavior warranted discipline, it was not egregious enough to deserve a 30 day suspension. He also noted that the Department did not have a history of issuing that severe a penalty and the grievant's prior disciplinary action was for dissimilar infractions. The Arbitrator reduced the suspension to 5 days, noting that the Grievant should still consider his job in jeopardy.

File last modified
March 19, 1998