by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

help in collecting the remaining $375 of the loan,
of which the grievant had repaid the resident The
Administrator charged the grievant with a
violation of the Home's disciplinary rules as the
grievant allegedly directed insulting language at
the resident as well as accepted a loan from the
resident in direct contradiction of the Home's
rules. The grievant was placed on administrative
leave with pay. Article 24.02 states "any
disciplinary action shall be commensurate with
the offense". The grievant had received no prior
severe discipline and had no current active
discipline in her file. Further, the grievant was
also a long term employee, therefore she was
entitled to extra consideration in determining her
penalty. 613
The grievant had maliciously sprayed a coworker
with hot water from a hose designed to
rinse dishes, and that the hot water caused minor
burns to the coworker's arm. The Arbitrator
agreed with the Union's position that the State
had violated Section 24.02 of the Agreement by
depriving the grievant of progressive discipline.
The Arbitrator stated that because of the lack of
progressive discipline, the charges of prior
misconduct on the part of the grievant could not
remain as a cause for removal. The Arbitrator
found that even without considering the past acts
of the grievant, the grievant's removal was
justified due to the serious nature of grievant's
September 15 misconduct. 615
An individual alleged that the grievant had been
sexually harassing her. In another incident, the
grievant and another employee were alone at the
Scioto Downs facility when the other employee
supposedly overheard the grievant say "the post
office scenario is not out of the question." The
grievant was also alleged to have made
threatening remarks about obtaining possession
of a firearm. The Arbitrator held that the grievant
was not entitled to progressive discipline because
his conduct was frequent, humiliating and
unwelcome. All of these factors have been
recognized as being applicable in determining if
sexual harassment is serious enough to constitute
a "Malum in se" offense—i.e. an act that is
implicitly wrong and warrants removal. The
Arbitrator found that the grievant's conduct was
sufficiently serious and rejected the application
of progressive discipline in this case. 618
The grievant punched an inmate in the jaw. A
witness stated that the inmate was not being
unruly at the time, and that the inmate was
handcuffed behind his back. The inmate was
later referred to a dentist who found that the
inmate had lost a filling and had suffered a
fractured tooth. The Arbitrator found that,
although five months had elapsed between the
date of the incident and the date the grievant's
suspension began, the Employer had undertaken
disciplinary action as soon as reasonably
possible and had acted in accordance with
Section 24.02 of the Agreement. 623
The Arbitrator found that the grievant's actions
in signing a friend's name to a refund application
without permission and taking the refund,
without approval, were serious violations of
department procedures and ruled that the
application of progressive discipline was not
warranted. 624
The results of an audit of the grievant’s work
indicated that the grievant had made errors at a
rate three times greater than that of any other
examiner. The grievant also allegedly failed to
inform his supervisor that he would not be able
to complete the work that he had been assigned
for the day. It was revealed that the grievant
reviewed vouchers out of sequence. The
grievant's supervisor stated that the department
operates on a first in, first out basis and that the
grievant should have been working on the
vouchers received two days prior. Under the
progressive discipline policy, it is widely
recognized that the last offense must be one of
sufficient magnitude, which, when taken together
with prior offenses, justifies the discharge. Here,
the evidence shows that the extent of the
grievant's errors were basically the same as those
which he previously committed when he was
given a five-day suspension. 626
The BWC informed its employees that two
incidents of discourteous treatment would result
in removal. The BWC went even further to
inform the grievant, with counseling every
month and progressive discipline more lenient
than what the Guidelines called for. The
Arbitrator held that the Employer was sensitive
to the grievant's problem with stress
management, and that management went to great
lengths to correct the grievant’s behavior, but
that the misconduct of the grievant, coupled with
past discipline, constituted just cause for
removal: 627
The grievant, a Correction Officer, was charged
with driving under suspension and for operating