THE ENGINEEREING Division of the Grays Harbor County Department of Public Services violated the seniority provision of the collective bargaining agreement, according to a finding in a recent arbitration hearing.

The Arbitrator, Joseph W. Duffy, ruled that the division violated the Agreement when it awarded an assignment to a less senior person than the grievant.

He ordered the department to stop violating the seniority provision of the Agreement and directed the employer to compensate the grievant for the overtime hours he would have worked if he had received the assignment.

The evidence was that in April 2000, a work assignment, which included overtime, became available for a scale shack operator on a bridge construction project referred to as the "Joe Creek" job. The employer assigned the job to an Engineering Technician III employee who had been working on the same survey crew as the grievant.

The grievant, an Engineering Technician V, had more seniority than the engineering technician assigned to the job.

When the grievant heard that the scale job had been awarded without anyone asking him whether he wanted it, he called the Union. The Union filed a grievance. The matter was discussed with the Department, but the parties could not reach a resolution.

John Kirkwood, the Union's Chapter President, testified that in awarding the scale job in this case, the employer did not follow the seniority provision of the 1999-2001 collective bargaining agreement. He said in the past extra work always has been awarded by seniority and he had never been advised that a different system for assigning overtime existed.

The grievant wanted his seniority recognized and could have earned additional money in the scale shack job.

The Deputy Director of Engineering concluded that the grievant was not available for the scale shack job because the Department needed him in his then current assignment.

The employer argued that the practice in the Grays Harbor County Engineering Department has been to consider availability and qualifications in addition to seniority when assigning jobs. Council 2 contended that the Agreement contains a "strict seniority" provision that gives the employer no latitude in deviating from the seniority list.

The arbitrator ruled that the clear language of the relevant section in the Agreement leaves no room for interpretation. He found that past practice had not modified the seniority provision and the employer must follow the Agreement.

David Kanigel, Legal Counsel, represented Council 2 at the hearing.