by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The arbitrator’s award was issued as a one-page decision. There was no rationale stated for the conversion of the grievant’s removal. The grievant was returned to work as a Custodian with no back pay and her record reflected no break in seniority and service credit. The grievant’s removal was converted to a 2-day suspension and she was indefinitely returned to a position that was not in direct contact with residents. The grievant retained bidding rights to non-direct care positions. Her pay was redlined at the TPW rate until her Custodian pay rate caught up to the redlined rate. Vacation and personal time would accrue only for those hours during the time the grievant was removed. 774 The arbitrator’s award was issued as a one-page decision. There was no rationale stated for the conversion of the grievant’s removal. The grievant was returned to work as a Custodian with no back pay and her record reflected no break in seniority and service credit. The grievant’s removal was converted to a 2-day suspension and she was indefinitely returned to a position that was not in direct contact with residents. The grievant retained bidding rights to non-direct care positions. Her pay was redlined at the TPW rate until her Custodian pay rate caught up to the redlined rate. Vacation and personal time would accrue only for those hours during the time the grievant was removed. 775 Though the arbitrator found that the grievant had made inappropriate comments to both coworkers and customers who visited the center, he could not sustain the removal. The grievant was no aware that his conduct was not welcome. The female co-workers who filed the charges never told the grievant that his behavior upset them. The employer failed to provide the proper sexual harassment training pursuant to a settlement agreement following a one-day suspension he received for previous misconduct. The arbitrator could not award back pay because the grievant’s record indicated that he had previously been disciplined three times for inappropriate comments to female customers. The arbitrator noted that after completion of sexual harassment training, the grievant would be fully responsible for the consequences incurred as a result of any further sexually harassing comments made to coworkers or customers. 776 The grievant was removed for allegedly striking an inmate while he was handcuffed and in custody of another CO. The arbitrator found that the testimony of the inmate coupled with the testimony of a fellow CO to be credible. He concluded that the grievant’s testimony was not supported and implausible. 778 The grievant was accused of allowing/encouraging inmates to physically abuse other inmates who were sex offenders. The arbitrator found that the grievant’s testimony was not credible when weighed against the testimony of co-workers and inmates. The Union argued that the lack of an investigatory report tainted the investigation. The arbitrator concluded that despite the lack of the report, the investigation was fair fundamentally and direct testimony and circumstantial evidence proved that the grievant had knowledge of the allegations against. The arbitrator found that the grievant was removed for just cause. 779 The grievant was accused of striking his supervisor, causing injury to his eye. The arbitrator found the supervisor’s version of what happened to be credible over the grievant’s testimony. The arbitrator noted that the grievant showed no remorse, did not admit to what he did not commit to changing his behavior. The arbitrator stated that without the commitment to amend his behavior, the grievant could not be returned to the workplace. 780 The grievant was charged with conducting a payfor-parole scheme, which resulted in at least two inmates inappropriately placed on parole. The arbitrator determined that this matter was based on circumstantial evidence that had not been corroborated by the investigation. The employer’s case was inconclusive. The arbitrator found one exception to his findings. The grievant raised suspicion of his activities by the volume of phone calls made to him by one of the inmates during an 18-month period. This suspicion compromised the grievant ability to perform his duties as a hearing officer. 783 The grievant was employed as an investigator in the Bureau of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DR&C). She was also the chapter president of the Union. She received a five-day suspension for removing investigative reports from co-workers’ offices, altering them and submitting the documents as her own work. The motive for her actions was to demonstrate disparate treatment between the grievant and fellow EEO Investigators regarding evaluation of
her work. The arbitrator stated that the significance of the grievant’s error is that she is an investigator and the value of her work was dependent upon her integrity. That integrity was compromised by her actions. The arbitrator was sympathetic to the grievant’s motivation, but found that the grievant erred in her method of self-protection. The action she took brought damage to her employer. Therefore, the arbitrator determined that the five-day suspension was within the guidelines for a first offense. 785 The employer alleged that the grievant provided an invalid commercial driver’s license (CDL) to an individual for the payment of $200. The Arbitrator found the testimony of the individual who received the invalid CDL was evasive, inconsistent, and unconvincing. He also found that the witness’s testimony does not prove the grievant was the person who approached him in the nightclub; however, the witness did not exonerate the grievant. The grievant’s former supervisor testified that the tests were graded by machine and the Employer could not prove that the grievant had the ability to tamper with the scores. The supervisor also testified that the employee seals were often not sufficiently secured.The Arbitrator concluded that when discipline is imposed, the reasoning used to make the judgment is to be based upon the evidence known at the time of the discharge. The Arbitrator found that the parties intended the obligation of an arbitrator was to judge the merits of the discharge at the time it took place and on the specific charges alleged at the time. He noted that the evidence presented, specifically, the deposition of the State’s witness was flawed because the witness refused to sign the transcript of his deposition. ollowing review of all the evidence the Arbitrator concluded that there was no doubt that the grievant has regularly been associated with individuals who have been involved in criminal activities creating an air of suspicion around her. However, the Arbitrator found that the appearance of impropriety did not support the conclusion arrived at by the Employer. 786 Grievant Johnson was a Penal Workshop Supervisor and Grievant Paige was a Penal Workshop Specialist, both at the Trumbull Correctional Institute. Both supervised the Ohio Penal Industries (OPI) division where inmates dismantled donated personal computers, upgraded and fixed them before sending them to schools and other locations. Johnson served as the “group leader” which involved supervising Paige’s activities. A finding of pornographic material in an inmate’s cell that was determined to have come from OPI led to a search of the OPI area on December 19, 2000. Numerous security violations were found in OPI as the result of the search including telephone splitters, cellular phones and 3.5 floppy disks in unauthorized areas, keys lying in unsecured areas, hidden laptop computers with charged battery packs, inmates legal papers and personal letters, unauthorized tools, among many others including a finding that several personal phone calls were made daily on the phone without authorization. The arbitrator found that while the Employer failed to substantiate all of the proposed rule violations, the cumulative effect of the security breaches allowed by Grievant Johnson was so egregious to the safety, health, and security of the institution that her removal was justified. The arbitrator found Rule 5(b), which is the purposeful or careless act resulting in damage, loss or misuse of property of the state was violated due to the illegal computer, fax, and printer use and allowing of such activity, even if only negligent was a dischargeable offense. The arbitrator found many other rule violations including Rule #7 for failure to properly inventory equipment and tools, and Rule #28 for the grievant’s failure to control the keys thereby jeopardizing the security of others. The arbitrator further found that Grievant Paige’s removal was not justified in that she was not similarly situated as Grievant Johnson. Grievant Paige was on probationary status at the time of the search and had spent a limited time in the area since she had been on sick leave. Grievant Paige was trained and under the direct supervision of Grievant Johnson, and therefore the arbitrator found that any shortcoming in Grievant Paige’s performance was directly attributable to Grievant Johnson’s interventions. 787 The grievant was charged with entering the room of a mental patient and striking him in the eye. The grievant stated that any injury the patient suffered was not the result of an intentional act by him. It was determined that the employer provided the only plausible explanation of what occurred. The arbitrator based this determination of the facts that the grievant failed to report the incident until the next day and that the patient’s testimony was consistent with the statement he made during the investigation seven months earlier. The arbitrator found the grievant’s
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 and 100: language toward a number of inmates
Page 101 and 102: a motor vehicle with an inoperative
Page 103: The grievant was removed for allege
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?