Los Angeles Partner Adrianna Guzman convinced an arbitrator to deny an employee’s grievance. In 2017, an employee began working as a Senior Dentist. He reported to the Dental Director, a higher-level position. In 2019, the Dental Director retired, and the employee-grievant claimed that from that time on, he performed the duties of both a Dental Director and a Senior Dentist.
LCW and our client established that the employee-grievant was not entitled to relief under either theory. As an initial matter, the employee-grievant was not entitled to an out-of-class bonus because the agency had eliminated the Dental Director position after the Dental Director retired in 2019. As a result, the employee-grievant could not prove that he was performing the duties of a funded, but vacant position since the position no longer existed. In regards to the second theory, LCW and our client proved that the additional duties that the employee-grievant claimed were simply duties that were already required of a Senior Dentist, or reasonably related to or encompassed by the Senior Dentist’s duties.
The arbitrator denied the grievance in its entirety, and our client prevailed.