The union grieved the termination of an unclassified data processing technician, arguing she was entitled to conversion to classified status under the collective agreement after two years of continuous full-time service.
The employer contended there was no continuing need for her work.
The Grievance Settlement Board found that the employer's own evidence demonstrated a continuing need for a full complement of technicians and that a vacancy was anticipated due to a planned promotion.
The Board held that a rebuttable presumption of continuing need arises after a substantial period of work, which the employer failed to rebut.
The grievance was allowed, and the employer was ordered to reinstate the grievor with full back pay and benefits.
