by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

day preceding the examination the grievant was
told he was to return to work following his
examination. The arbitrator found that the
grievant was insubordinate when he refused to
tender a leave form after receiving a direct order
from his supervisor to do so. The grievant
should have obeyed the directive and grieved it
afterwards. The arbitrator noted the grievant’s
prior disciplines regarding violations of
attendance rules, stating that the grievant seemed
unaffected by the prior disciplines. However, the
arbitrator concluded that termination was
excessive in this case. 752
The grievant was charged with failing to tag and
immediately slaughter a suspect/downed animal.
He failed to note that a chicken processing plant
did not properly perform fecal checks; thus it
was not in compliance. He also failed to conduct
an adequate inspection and neglect to note
unsanitary conditions at a processing plant. The
arbitrator concluded that the factual transactions
amounted to neglect by the grievant of his duties
as a meat inspector, endangering the public (Rule
30) and potentially harming the public (Rule 25).
The Arbitrator found that the grievant could not
demonstrate that he did not receive sufficient
notice of the potential for disciplinary action for
the three actions for which he was discharged.
753
The grievant was charged with alleged abuse of a
resident. The grievant argued that the resident
had become attached to her, was self-abusive and
tended to act out in an attempt to get the
grievant’s attention. The grievant contended that
management was aware of the problem and
failed to address it. The arbitrator found that
there was a formal program in place to handle
the resident’s aggressive behavior. The arbitrator
noted that even if management had been less
responsive to the problem, it is a part of the
duties of the caregivers to handle difficult
residents without abusing them. The arbitrator
concluded that on the date in question the
grievant was unable to do that; therefore, she was
removed for just cause. 754
The grievant was charged with alleged resident
abuse. The employer did not meet its burden of
proof that what occurred in this instance could be
characterized as physical abuse. The arbitrator
found that there were elements of the evidence
presented which supported the grievant’s
testimony of what transpired. 755
The employer erroneously interpreted Section
124.27 of the Ohio Revised Code which states
that “employees in the classified service shall be
or become forthwith a resident of the State.”
The employer added restrictions to the term
“resident” – primary and permanent. Those
restrictions made the term resident synonymous
with domicile. The arbitrator noted that while a
person could have only a single domicile, he/she
could have many residences. The arbitrator
found that the number and types of contacts with
Ohio that the grievants had (family living in
Ohio, established residency in Ohio) satisfied the
term of residency under 124.27. The grievants
were discharged without just cause. 756
The grievant was accused of client abuse. The
arbitrator found that the lack of evidence,
including numerous blank pages in a transcript
of an interview of the State’s witness by a police
officer, did not support the employer’s position
in this instance. 757
The grievant was charged with having an
unauthorized relationship with an inmate.
Handwritten notes to the inmate were analyzed
and determined to be from the grievant. The
arbitrator found that the employer met its burden
of proof and based its findings on both direct and
circumstantial evidence.758
The arbitrator determined that the grievant
physically abused an inmate in a mental health
residential unit. He was accused of using
abusive and intimidating language towards the
inmate in addition to stomping the inmate. The
evidence presented and the testimonies of the
witnesses supported management’s position and
removal was warranted. 759
The charges of sexual harassment and offensive
touching of co-workers were not proven by the
employer. The arbitrator determined that the
investigation of the charges by the employer was
neither fair nor complete. It was clear that there
was one witness to the two incidents available;
however, management did not interview this
witness. Therefore, the statements and evidence
presented were unsubstantiated. The arbitrator
determined that the offensive touching occurred
before the grievant was notified that the touching
was unwelcome and that the touching that
occurred was consistent with the usual behavior
between the grievant and the complaining coworker.
761