by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
a motor vehicle with an inoperative taillight. The following day, the grievant approached a pizza deliveryman at a hotel, allegedly stated that he was a United States Marshall, showed the man his institutional ID, and allegedly requested money for food and gas. The pizza deliveryman eventually gave the grievant twenty dollars. The grievant was also charged with the Unauthorized Use of a Motor Vehicle after admitting he drove away from the hotel in a vehicle without the permission of the owner. The Arbitrator held that the grievant's off-duty misconduct was unacceptable, and violated various departmental rules which allow for the removal on the first offense. Furthermore, the grievant had been given ample opportunities in the past to improve his behavior through the Employee Assistance Program, but failed to do so. 631 Article 24.02 requires that the Employer follow the principles of progressive corrective discipline and that disciplinary action be commensurate with the offense. The Arbitrator found that the offense alleged in this case, fighting, was serious enough to not require progressive discipline. 634 The grievant was charged with Failure of Good Behavior and Neglect of Duty after several specific allegations, including failure to follow scripted openings and closings for telephone calls, addressing callers as "babe" and "honey", failing to verify information and answering the phone without responding, causing callers to hang up. The Arbitrator held that the Employer did not have just cause to remove the grievant, even though the charges were supported by the evidence, but that the grievant's removal should be reduced to a four week suspension because of the Employer's failure to use progressive discipline. 635 The grievant faced a series of charges following her reinstatement from a previous removal. A predisciplinary meeting resulted in the hearing officer substantiating all charges, except a charge that the grievant refused to let a patient into the building. The hearing officer recommended removal as a progressive discipline. The arbitrator found the grievant guilty of a number of the charges, and that there was just cause for removal. However, the arbitrator noted that the State was eager to either change the grievant’s behavior or, failing that, get rid of her. Management must accept partial responsibility for the grievant’s troubles on the job. While the arbitrator found no just cause for removal, the grievant’s removal was upheld, an award of back pay and benefits was given from the date of her discharge to the date of award. The date of her award would also be noted as the grievant’s termination date: 701 The grievant was charged with accepting an inmate’s medical file in order to assist the inmate in obtaining an attorney. The Union argued that the grievant had no other active disciplinary actions on record, and that the grievant did not contact any attorney for the inmate. Thus, the removal was too harsh and unwarranted. The Arbitrator noted that the grievant had worked for a relatively short period of time and though he had a good work record, it did not outweigh the severity of the offense. 702 The grievant was charged with threatening and intimidating coworkers, failing to answer questions during an investigation (after being given a Garrity warning on two occasions) and refusing to participate in a required psychological examination. Arbitrator could find no source in the record to warrant the charge of Neglect of Duty, which is the only offense, per Department guidelines, which can result in removal on a first offense. The Arbitrator held that removal was inappropriate. 703 The Arbitrator determined that the circumstantial evidence presented by the Employer lacked sufficient probative value to meet a “just cause” burden. He noted that there were no witnesses who could testify that the grievant was upset. He also noted that the resident was self-abusive and had a history of displaying the abuse in specific patterns. The Arbitrator pointed out that the grievant’s performance evaluations demonstrated that he met or exceeded performance requirements. The Arbitrator stated that although the grievant was loud, the conclusion that he was abusive could not be reached. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union’s position that the resident’s injuries were covered by his shirt, which the parties stated in agreement was never removed. The injuries suggested the resident had been in a scuffle, but the grievant’s physical appearance did not indicate that he had been in the kind of altercation that would cause the injuries present on the resident’s body. 751 The arbitrator found that the grievant was wrong to think he could take off work the rest of the day following a two-hour examination. The employer presented credible evidence that on the
Page 1 and 2:
INDEX BY CONTRACT SECTION ARTICLE 1
Page 3 and 4:
this case, one cannot conclude that
Page 5 and 6:
Muskingum Counties that were consol
Page 7 and 8:
in Article 24.04 as a meeting. The
Page 9 and 10:
Article 2.01 requires that neither
Page 11 and 12:
The Arbitrator found that when the
Page 13 and 14:
hardship when an employee was on Un
Page 15 and 16:
determined that through Article 5,
Page 17 and 18:
The grievant had a thirty-day time
Page 19 and 20:
Management established a list of in
Page 21 and 22:
the FR clothing during these five m
Page 23 and 24:
11.11 - Concern for Pregnancy Hazar
Page 25 and 26:
of the contract occurred. Based upo
Page 27 and 28:
“In paragraph 3…the word “win
Page 29 and 30:
overtime. The arbitrator found that
Page 31 and 32:
an educated guess, the grievance mu
Page 33 and 34:
2. The Agreement also designates th
Page 35 and 36:
which this particular agreement did
Page 37 and 38:
In this case the Union grieved that
Page 39 and 40:
Arbitrator held that the Grievant f
Page 41 and 42:
when he was placed back into his fo
Page 43 and 44:
selected because she was within ten
Page 45 and 46:
she was in Section 17.04 applicant
Page 47 and 48:
for a new DCS Assessment. The union
Page 49 and 50: won is not sufficient to prove incr
Page 51 and 52: Ohio Revised Code 145.298 requires
Page 53 and 54: 18.04 (formerly Article 18.03 of 19
Page 55 and 56: establishes that the just cause sta
Page 57 and 58: suspension would be excessive and u
Page 59 and 60: employee cannot be on “notice”
Page 61 and 62: grievant was a nine-year employee w
Page 63 and 64: not lead to the conclusion that the
Page 65 and 66: grievant’s allegation that the si
Page 67 and 68: etween the grievant and his supervi
Page 69 and 70: her car on state property and she p
Page 71 and 72: The Employer had just cause to remo
Page 73 and 74: The employer had just cause to remo
Page 75 and 76: a period of about 10-15 minutes whe
Page 77 and 78: commodities was completely lacking
Page 79 and 80: answer questions, even after the De
Page 81 and 82: offenders. The incident was recorde
Page 83 and 84: judgment and his less than credible
Page 85 and 86: employees and the Union are aware t
Page 87 and 88: once the Youth was on the ground. C
Page 89 and 90: enroll in an EAP program within fiv
Page 91 and 92: The parties did not intend that pre
Page 93 and 94: progressive and commensurate discip
Page 95 and 96: Bureau of Employment Services, had
Page 97 and 98: jurisdiction to resolve differences
Page 99: language toward a number of inmates
Page 103 and 104: The grievant was removed for allege
Page 105 and 106: her work. The arbitrator stated tha
Page 107 and 108: meeting. The evidence also suggeste
Page 109 and 110: egarding IME’s within ODNR. The a
Page 111 and 112: individual under the supervision of
Page 113 and 114: arbitrator noted that if the behavi
Page 115 and 116: particularly in light of layoffs, b
Page 117 and 118: “extraordinarily patient with the
Page 119 and 120: and he had remained in contact with
Page 121 and 122: credible. Evidence presented indica
Page 123 and 124: oad, commonsensical guidelines abou
Page 125 and 126: aware of the grievant’s poor work
Page 127 and 128: procedural error. He found that whe
Page 129 and 130: youth at his facility. The evidence
Page 131 and 132: COs were aiding in investigations a
Page 133 and 134: The grievant was involved in a resp
Page 135 and 136: with sleep apnea and begun treatmen
Page 137 and 138: that he would have accrued during t
Page 139 and 140: years of state service. The arbitra
Page 141 and 142: workers who were aware of the condu
Page 143 and 144: criminal Assault and Falsification.
Page 145 and 146: held that removal was unreasonable,
Page 147 and 148: was knowledgeable of the corrective
Page 149 and 150: 24.04 - Pre-Discipline supervisor.
Page 151 and 152:
equire support before one can estab
Page 153 and 154:
is considered when fashioning a rem
Page 155 and 156:
The grievant was an investigator wi
Page 157 and 158:
egarding the conduct of a superviso
Page 159 and 160:
The grievant was a Corrections Offi
Page 161 and 162:
considered the grievant’s guilty
Page 163 and 164:
24.05. The Arbitrator agreed with t
Page 165 and 166:
The grievant was reinstated to her
Page 167 and 168:
consider that the co-worker may hav
Page 169 and 170:
grievant’s removal was upheld, an
Page 171 and 172:
once the Youth was on the ground. C
Page 173 and 174:
undermines the purpose of the EAP p
Page 175 and 176:
exercised its discretion in an arbi
Page 177 and 178:
the possible violation was not brou
Page 179 and 180:
irrelevant for the purpose of calcu
Page 181 and 182:
grievance was held arbitrable, (the
Page 183 and 184:
prohibited from using the grievance
Page 185 and 186:
employee in her right to bring a gr
Page 187 and 188:
26, 1994. The language of Contract
Page 189 and 190:
y the grievant, would be compensabl
Page 191 and 192:
committed other acts of neglect of
Page 193 and 194:
filed a grievance arguing that assi
Page 195 and 196:
guarantee that a document has suffi
Page 197 and 198:
25.08 because the union made excess
Page 199 and 200:
26.03 Work on Holidays No dispute e
Page 201 and 202:
ARTICLE 28 - VACATIONS 28.01 - Rate
Page 203 and 204:
contains various interventions and
Page 205 and 206:
comported entirely with her initial
Page 207 and 208:
ARTICLE 32 - TRAVEL 32.02 - Persona
Page 209 and 210:
ARTICLE 36 - WAGES 36.02 - General
Page 211 and 212:
37.04 - In-Service Training Under 3
Page 213 and 214:
arbitrator found the grievance arbi
Page 215 and 216:
43.03 - Mid-Term Contractual Change
Page 217 and 218:
permanent part-time employees earn
Page 219 and 220:
she was evaluated below average in
Page 221 and 222:
“similar or related series” as
show all

by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?