(1) The board shall, by rule promulgated in accordance with article 4 of this title, adopt uniform procedures to be used by all principal departments and institutions of higher education in developing grievance processes for their employees. The grievance procedures shall provide an orderly system of review for all grievances and shall define matters that are subject to such grievance procedures.
(2) Matters arising under sections 24-50-125 and 24-50-104 (1)(c) shall not be subject to a grievance procedure under this section.
(3) The decision of the appointing authority shall be final; except that an employee may petition the board for review. The board may grant the petition only when it appears that the decision of the appointing authority violates an employee's rights under the federal or state constitution, part 4 of article 34 of this title, article 50.5 of this title, or the grievance procedures adopted pursuant to subsection (1) of this section. The board shall review and summarily grant or deny a petition within one hundred twenty days of receipt of the petition; except that petitions filed with the board that result in an investigation pursuant to section 24-50-125.3 or 24-50.5-104 are exempt from the one-hundred-twenty-day review requirement. Any petition granted shall be determined in accordance with section 24-50-125.4.
Source: L. 72: R&RE, p. 173, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 26-1-23. L. 77: Entire section amended, p. 1220, § 2, effective August 2. L. 81: Entire section amended, p. 1202, § 19, effective July 1. L. 99: Entire section amended, p. 595, § 2, effective August 4. L. 2000: Entire section amended, p. 788, § 1, effective August 2. L. 2004: Entire section amended, p. 1694, § 30, effective July 1, 2005. L. 2005: (3) amended, p. 633, § 2, effective May 27. L. 2010: (3) amended, (HB 10-1003), ch. 70, p. 241, § 1, effective August 11.
ANNOTATION
Law reviews. For article, "ADR at the State Personnel Board", see 18 Colo. Law. 911 (1989).
Limitation on state personnel board's authority to reverse grievance decisions made by appointing authorities is not an unconstitutional interference with the board's constitutional authority to set rules governing grievances under § 14 of art. XII, Colo. Const. Colo. Ass'n of Pub. Employees v. Lamm, 677 P.2d 1350 (Colo. 1984).
The state personnel board has discretion as to whether to hold hearings on appeals of grievances brought pursuant to this section. Rojhani v. Arenson, 929 P.2d 23 (Colo. App. 1996).
The decision to eliminate a public safety sergeant position and to replace armed public safety officers with unarmed guards on a university police force had an adverse effect on complainants' working conditions, but the layoffs were due to the overall reorganization, not the decision to contract out some of the police work. Therefore, the complainants' injuries are not measured by the pay and benefits they would have received in the same positions but by the pay and benefits they would have received if they had continued employment in the available positions. Sutton v. Univ. of S. Colo., 870 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1994).
Public safety sergeant who is laid off from a university police force due to a reorganization is not entitled to reinstatement to the position of public safety officer, unless complainant shows that had there been no contracting out, complainant reasonably could have expected to be advanced to the position of public safety officer. Sutton v. Univ. of S. Colo., 870 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1994).
Substantially equivalent employment. In determining if the university's unconditional offer to re-employ a former public safety sergeant who was laid off due to reorganization as a public officer is substantially equivalent employment, a comparison must be made between the unarmed guard position he would have occupied if there had been no contracting out and the public safety position that was offered. Sutton v. Univ. of S. Colo., 870 P.2d 650 (Colo. App. 1994).