WHEN THE KENT City Council posted an opening for a five-month position of temporary technician in its permit office, a former employee in the Planning Department applied. He had been a victim of layoffs in the previous year and he was anxious to return to work full time for the City.

In addition to his submission, the City received applications from people who had no experience in working for the Planning Department.

Two City employees on the three-person team convened to interview the applicants recommended the previous employee be hired for the temporary position. They said he did his job “very, very well,” was sharp, worked well with customers and co-workers and required no new training.

But Fred Satterstrom, director of the City’s Community Development Center, chose one of the other applicants.

His action led Council 2 to file a recall grievance against the City. The union pointed out that, when the layoffs were announced, union officials had drawn up a memorandum of understanding with the City that called for the recall criteria of the contract to be used to fill temporary positions. These criteria meant that previous employees in the bargaining unit who met the minimum qualifications of a position should receive preferential treatment in the hiring.

In a memo placed before the arbitration hearing, Satterstrom defended his action by saying that he believed the interpersonal skills of the candidate who had been hired outweighed the mere technical skills.

Council 2 argued that, according to the agreement, there was no requirement that the grievant be the most qualified for the job, only that he possess the minimum qualifications.

The arbitrator, Thomas F. Levak, agreed with Council 2’s contention. He found the City violated the agreement when it determined the new hire possessed superior qualifications.

“Indeed, for what it is worth, all persuasive evidence established that the grievant’s qualifications for the five-month temporary position were far superior” to the new hire, Levak said. “He was able to perform the job without any training at all, thus freeing up others from training responsibility and he, himself, was able to train and assist, and to fill in for absent personnel. Both factors would have led to better service to the public.”

Levak found City testimony that the grievant was unable to work effectively under the policy or as part of a team to be “self-serving and totally unconvincing.”

He ruled that the grievant should be “made whole for the five-month period that he should have been placed in the temporary permit technician position.”

General Counsel Audrey Eide appeared for Council 2.