by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Grievant was knowledgeable about DPS’ rules<br />
relating to leave and any future violation would<br />
act as an aggravating factor warranting his<br />
removal. 969<br />
The Arbitrator found that the evidence<br />
and testimony clearly established that<br />
the Grievant committed numerous<br />
violations of the computer use policy on<br />
a regular basis. These included:<br />
a. installing a Palm Pilot on her work<br />
computer.<br />
b. maintaining non‐work related files<br />
on her department computer.<br />
c. accessing two non‐departmental<br />
email accounts from her computer<br />
d. using the computer to actively<br />
access shopping sites<br />
The Arbitrator rejected the charge of<br />
insubordination. The Arbitrator held<br />
that “dishonesty” was not a proper<br />
charge. It implies serious misconduct<br />
where an employee’s motive is often to<br />
obtain pay that he/she is not entitled to<br />
receive. The Grievant’s timesheets<br />
suggest that she simply recorded her<br />
regular starting, lunch, and ending times<br />
regardless of the actual times and none<br />
involved a claim for extra<br />
compensation. Furthermore, all the<br />
timesheets were approved <strong>by</strong> her<br />
supervisor. The prior five-day<br />
suspension for computer misuse<br />
suggests that the Grievant was familiar<br />
with the computer use policy and knew<br />
that further discipline would result from<br />
continued computer misuse. It also<br />
indicates that she failed to take<br />
advantage of the opportunity to correct<br />
her behavior.<br />
Despite the Grievant’s 13 years of state<br />
service, the Arbitrator held that the state<br />
had the right to remove her. The<br />
Grievant’s extensive violations of the<br />
computer use policy combined with the<br />
other less serious offenses support the<br />
state’s actions. Her prior five-day<br />
suspension for computer misuse<br />
removes any doubt that the state acted<br />
pursuant to its contractual authority.<br />
1016<br />
2.02 - Agreement Rights<br />
No violation where arbitrator not persuaded that<br />
discipline had discriminatory motive: 1 The<br />
grievant was a Corrections Officer removed for<br />
using vulgar language, conducting union<br />
business on work time, and fondling an inmate.<br />
The arbitrator rejected the claim that the Union<br />
had a right to question witnesses at the predisciplinary<br />
hearing. Nor did the employer<br />
violate Article 25.08 because the union made<br />
excessive document requests. The employer did<br />
violate Article 25.02 <strong>by</strong> not issuing a Step 3<br />
response for six (6) months, however the<br />
grievant was not prejudiced. Therefore, the<br />
arbitrator found, because the inmate was more<br />
credible than the grievant, that just cause did<br />
exist for the removal. 366<br />
The arbitrator rejected the Union’s argument that<br />
the grievant, who falsified his applications,<br />
resumes, and a recommendation letter, was<br />
discriminated against. The Union did not<br />
corroborate its allegations that the grievant was<br />
removed because he filed a multitude of<br />
grievances or because he was black. 453 (1992-<br />
94 contract)<br />
Because of the inclusion within the collective<br />
bargaining agreement of Section 2.02 –<br />
Agreement Rights – there is a negotiated<br />
provision which guarantees to the members of<br />
the bargaining unit that the Agency will not be<br />
permitted to make arbitrary decision. 574 (1994-<br />
97 contract)<br />
The grievant, a Juvenile Correction Officer at the<br />
Indian River School, was removed for job<br />
abandonment. The grievant failed to provide the<br />
employer with actual or constructive notice of<br />
his departure. The Union argued that the removal<br />
violated Article 2.02 because management had<br />
placed other employees on involuntary disability<br />
separations. The Arbitrator held that the Union<br />
failed to demonstrate that the employees placed<br />
on disability were similarly situated to the<br />
grievant. 590 (1994-97 contract)<br />
After the grievant met with two management<br />
representatives to discuss charges of falsifying<br />
his job application, he tendered his resignation.<br />
The arbitrator found that the grievant was not<br />
coerced or intimidated into resigning because the<br />
only conceivable threats that the employer could<br />
have made were already evident. As a result, the<br />
arbitrator ordered that the grievant’s resignation<br />
should stand. 686 (1997-2000 contract)