Union Grievance?

[dclamp]

Has anyone ever filed a Union Grievance?

[TysonLPrice]

Has anyone ever filed a Union Grievance?

I have...back in the mid seventies I was in the united steel workers union. It was for a safety issue. Seems like a lifetime ago.

[techgnome]

I've only ever been part of a union once, and not for very long (two summers, probably less than 9 months total)... can't say I had a problem worth filing anything about.

-tg

[dclamp]

I am apart of the California State University Employees Union. The reason I bring up grievance is because a coworker and I (who are currently working as Part Time Employees) applied for a full time position. We were both passed up for the position for someone outside the department who "more closely met the needs of the department and position."

Our union contract states the following:

9.3

An employee who believes he/she is qualified for a vacant position at a CSU
campus or the Chancellor's Office may apply for such position within the
specified application period. Applications shall be submitted to the appropriate
Human Resources Office. An employee may submit, along with an application, a
statement regarding his/her experience and service within the CSU. Such a
statement shall be a part of the employee's application. CSU documents regarding
any meritorious service by the employee at the CSU may also be submitted by the
employee with an application. It shall be the policy of the CSU in filling vacant
bargaining unit positions to fill such vacancies from among qualified CSUEU represented employees currently employed at a campus. This section does not
apply to employees who have served in temporary emergency positions for ninety
(90) days or less, as described in Section 9.10. The President may appoint outside
applicants when he/she determines such action is necessary to meet the best
interest of the campus by obtaining specialized skills and abilities not available
from current employees.

Considering my coworker and I are both fully trained and certified for this position, it would cost the department $0 to move us to full time. Hiring someone from outside will cost at least $5,000+ to train them including 6+ months worth of unnecessary time. My speculation, as well as a few other close coworkers fell that there is something shady going on with the administration and some type of favoritism is occurring.

[techgnome]

"outside the department" --- or a complete outsider? It doesn't seem to state anything about candidates at the department level... just "employees currently employed at a campus" ... which means anyone employed by the University will be considered.

if they came from completely outside the University... then you might have a leg to stand on... otherwise... not so sure. At the very least, someone should be able to explain the reasoning.

-tg

[dclamp]

"outside the department" --- or a complete outsider? It doesn't seem to state anything about candidates at the department level... just "employees currently employed at a campus" ... which means anyone employed by the University will be considered.

if they came from completely outside the University... then you might have a leg to stand on... otherwise... not so sure. At the very least, someone should be able to explain the reasoning.

-tg

We were the only two people in the Union to apply for the position. Which means it is someone from outside of the entire CSU system.

[Steve R Jones]

Doesn't the last sentences cover their backsides?

The President may appoint outside
applicants when he/she determines such action is necessary to meet the best
interest of the campus by obtaining specialized skills and abilities not available
from current employees.

[dclamp]

Doesn't the last sentences cover their backsides?

That is something I am a little worried about, however they would have to explain to my union what the specialized skill that this person has, that I do not. I have already contacted my union rep and he is going to look into this situation to see what happened and what action needs to be taken.

Also the problem is, I interviewed on Tuesday at 10:15am. The results came out Wednesday at 130pm. 24 hours is not enough time for the Chief to contact the president and for the President to make a decision. It sounds shady.

[Shaggy Hiker]

If this wasn't union, I'd say the fix was certainly in, but that doesn't mean it was shady. We see this all the time: Positions open up, but everybody knows who is going to get the job, so the interviewing is largely just a convention. However, the reason the person is going to get the job is because they are clearly excellent. While there are other qualified candidates, nobody in their right mind is going to take a well-qualified unknown over a well-qualified known entity. However, union agreements would have an impact on this. Still, I'll be that the person who got hired isn't unknown. You just don't know how they ARE known. So, it could be shady...or not, depending on who that person is.

[dclamp]

This is true that the person may be known by the administration. However I have a strong feeling they are not associated with our union. Unless they came from another campus. But it does indeed sound like they already knew who they were going to hire from the very beginning. The administration should know what our contract says and should follow it, sounds shady to me. Why waste department money and time with someone who needs to be trained.

[dilettante]

(cough, cough) nepotism, crony, (ahem, harumph) belongs to my church.

[dclamp]

(cough, cough) nepotism, crony, (ahem, harumph) belongs to my church.

*rolls eyes*

[dilettante]

Well you asked why.

[dee-u]

We see this all the time: Positions open up, but everybody knows who is going to get the job, so the interviewing is largely just a convention.

And I thought it was only here in our country that does that, good to know we are not alone. =)

[FunkyDexter]

I've actually been in the position of having to do "pointless" interviews when recruiting for a role once. When we created the role we knew exactly who we wanted and we knew they were interested but HR still made us jump through the hoops of advertising and going through the process. The funny thing was that one of the other applicants gave a really excelent showing and we came very close to choosing him instead. In the end we stuck with our original choice (they were still a marginally better fit but only marginally) but it did give me pause for thought that, if we hadn't gone through the process, I'd never have given the other candidate a second glance.

[InvisibleDuncan]

When we created the role we knew exactly who we wanted and we knew they were interested but HR still made us jump through the hoops of advertising and going through the process.

If your company employs more than a given number of staff, I believe that there's actually a legal obligation (in the UK) to go through this process to comply with anti-discrimination laws.

[FunkyDexter]

I checked into it and I don't think it's as cut and dried as that (though it was all a bit confusing so I might have got it completely wrong). It's not so much that you're obligated to do it, but rather an employee who wants to bring a discrimination case can use you not doing it as an example.

So if you have just one position comes up and you decide to give it straight to Joe Bloggs because he'd demonstrably ideal for the job then you're probably fine. But if you do it alot and, co-incidentally, none of the people you hire are black, then you leave yourself open to a discrimination case being bought against you. Similarly, if Joe Bloggs is qualified for a role and you repeatedly give that role to other people without giving Joe a chance he could bring it up as evidence of possible discrimination at an industrial tribunal.

So it's not so much that you have to jump through the hoops or you're guilty of discrimination so much as jumping through the hoops gives you lots of good ammunition to prove that you're not. It was a huge grey area, though, and I could be entirely wrong about the whole thing.

[dclamp]

After taking some time to actually think about it, maybe its not in my best interest to fight the decision. Maybe I will win the grievance and get the position in the end. But once I get it, then Im on a year of probation and I can be fired for any technicality they find. Then they could just go with the original person they wanted.

Perhaps not getting hired is the best thing for now.

[FunkyDexter]

After taking some time to actually think about it, maybe its not in my best interest to fight the decision

I personally think it very rarely is. Of course, if they did let you go during your probabtion and you could prove the reason was spurious then you could file a new grievance and so on but do you really want to be constantly fighting your corner? It also means that you'll have to be squeaky clean from here on in because they'll be waiting for any excuse to let you go.

Personally I think the only time it's worth going to a tribunal (or any similar process) is if you're leaving the company anyway and are hoping for some compensation. And possibly not even then because it can tarnish the way subsequent employers view you.

And after posting that I feel like my left wing beliefs have been trampled in teh dust. It's quite depressing really but the truth is they've got us by the balls.

[TysonLPrice]

I personally think it very rarely is. Of course, if they did let you go during your probabtion and you could prove the reason was spurious then you could file a new grievance and so on but do you really want to be constantly fighting your corner? It also means that you'll have to be squeaky clean from here on in because they'll be waiting for any excuse to let you go.

Personally I think the only time it's worth going to a tribunal (or any similar process) is if you're leaving the company anyway and are hoping for some compensation. And possibly not even then because it can tarnish the way subsequent employers view you.

And after posting that I feel like my left wing beliefs have been trampled in teh dust. It's quite depressing really but the truth is they've got us by the balls.

I have to agree with this. It is the lot of the working man