WHEN the City of Hoquiam advertised the position of Groundskeeper at the City cemetery in October 1999, a Local 275 member who was then Senior Lawn Care Worker applied.

Not only was he the only applicant for the position of Groundskeeper, he also had been performing all the work identified in the job description.

But the City removed the posting for the position and did not hire him. According to the Mayor, he did not meet the requirements of the position.

Instead, the City extended his 8-month Lawn Care Worker position to a 12-month position, but continued to pay him the lower wages for that position compared with the one that had been advertised.

Council 2 filed a grievance on behalf of the Local 275 member, arguing that he should have been paid at the higher Groundskeeper rate as he was doing essentially the same work under the same conditions.

The City argued that he essentially was a part-time employee who had been asked to continue temporary work for an extended period. In addition, the City said, he was not qualified for the position.

Arbitrator James A. Lundberg ruled that the City violated the contract when it failed to promote the grievant to Groundskeeper. Lundberg found that the grievant was the most senior candidate for the position and that he met the minimum qualifications and prior performance criteria for the position.

He awarded him the position.

The requirements set forth by the Employer for the promotion went beyond those specified in the bargained-for description, Lundberg added.

He awarded the grievant back pay and benefits with interest dating back to 1999.

This is only the second time in more than 10 years that interest has been awarded in a Council 2 grievance arbitration. It is awarded only in particularly egregious cases of contract violation.

The grievant was represented by Audrey Eide, General Counsel for Council 2.