A deputy sheriff took the Investigator Deputy promotional exam along with 1100 other deputies. The Sheriff’s Department administered the exam through its testing unit.
The deputy passed the first component of the exam, which allowed her to progress to the second component, which she did not pass. In 2022, the deputy (along with dozens of other deputies that failed the second component) filed an informal grievance with the testing unit and requested copies of her test results and scores. The Department granted the grievance to the extent that it re-reviewed the deputy’s score, but denied the grievance to the extent that it did not change the deputy’s score.
The deputy then filed a formal grievance with the department challenging her score on the second component and requested that she be re-examined and given a passing score. In the following months, the deputy met with the bureau that oversees the testing unit regarding her exam. Again, the Department reviewed her score, but her score remained the same.
The union then filed a formal grievance arbitration request, alleging improper scoring and violations of grievance procedures. At the same time, the union filed many similar arbitration requests for other deputies regarding exam scores. Almost a year later, the union and the Department reached an agreement allowing for one final review of each deputy’s contested score. After this process, the union’s counsel withdrew all pending arbitration requests on the issue, including the deputy’s, without refiling. However, approximately 10 months after the union withdrew all arbitration requests, the union filed a second request for arbitration for the deputy, repeating the same claims as before, and based on the same original grievance she filed in 2022.
In the arbitration, Attorney Frederick argued that the deputy and her union failed to file their formal grievance arbitration request by the MOU deadline. He also argued that even if untimely filed, the deputy’s second grievance was already resolved because she: 1) previously sought out and received all available remedies provided under the MOU and testing procedures; and 2) failed to submit any specific evidence to support any change in her exam score.
The arbitrator found the formal grievance arbitration request was untimely. The deputy and the union knew that no changes would be made to her scores after her meetings with Department officials. The withdrawal of the first grievance in 2023 terminated the initial grievance process, and the MOU did not permit restarting or re-filing the same grievance months later. Also, the second grievance presented no new evidence or issues to justify reopening the case.
The arbitrator determined that the MOU’s clear language was silent on any exceptions to the stated grievance filing deadline. The arbitrator reasoned that if the parties had wanted to grant an exception to the filing deadline, then they would have so stated that in their MOU. The arbitrator had no authority to rewrite the MOU to extend the filing deadline. The arbitrator also found that even if the deputy had timely filed, she failed to raise any specific new issues with her exam score or procedural violations.