by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

and poor judgment were not justified. The
grievant was under orders not to copy and it was
determined that he clearly disregarded the order;
therefore, discipline for insubordination was
justified. 799
The grievant was removed for physical abuse of
an inmate. The arbitrator concluded that the
grievant committed the act based on testimony
and injuries suffered by the inmate. The nurse
who examined the inmate noted the several
injuries which included superficial cuts, minor
swelling and minimal bleeding. The arbitrator
viewed most of these injuries as a direct result of
the grievant’s misconduct. Evidence included a
telephone conversation with another CO in
which the grievant discussed damage he done to
and inmate. Based on the totality of
circumstantial evidence, the arbitrator found that
the grievant physically abused the inmate. 800
Bench Decision – The grievant was returned to
his former position. His termination was to be
removed from his personnel record. The time
since his removal was to be converted to
Administrative Leave without pay. The grievant
was ordered into a Last Chance Agreement for
two years for violations of Rule 40 – Any act that
could bring discredit to the employer. 801
The arbitrator found that the phrase “records of
other disciplinary action” as stated in Article
24.06 includes notice of discipline and the
accompanying personnel actions. DAS was
ordered to develop and implement a system for
removing disciplinary records within three years
for all bargaining unit members. The Union may
request updates. All disciplinary records for the
grievant that were outside the schedule
established in 24.06 or any settlement were to be
removed. 802
The arbitrator found that the grievant failed to
inform her employer of a past casual relationship
with an inmate. The grievant had a duty to
notify her employer of this information. In this
instance, the grievant had ongoing contact with
the inmate as a Word Processing Specialist 2
responsible for telephone and office contact with
the inmate. The arbitrator also found that the
grievant sent confidential official documents to
the inmate without approval. He noted that the
fact that the mail was intercepted does not negate
the severity of the grievant’s actions. Her
actions potentially placed the parole officer in
charge of the inmate’s case at risk for retaliation
by the inmate. 803
The grievant was charged with using a
hammerlock to restrain an aggressive and violent
resident. During the struggle with the resident,
both individuals fell and the resident was injured.
The arbitrator did not view the grievant’s actions
as improper. The arbitrator noted that the hold
used by the grievant seemed no worse than any
of the holds included in the facility’s training
manual. He concluded that the injuries were not
caused by the hold but by the fall to the floor and
that the fall would have occurred regardless of
the hold used to restrain the resident. The
arbitrator rejected the notion that the use of a
hold that was not facility-approved or included
in the training of employees is abusive. He
noted that there are situations in which the
employees must react quickly to control an
individual or situation, or to protect themselves.
The arbitrator found no just cause for removal of
the grievant. 804
The arbitrator found that the grievance was not
filed properly – it was not filed on the proper
form nor filed within 14 days of notification
pursuant to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. The arbitrator stated that if the
grievance had been properly filed, it would have
been denied on its merits. The grievant was
charged with using derogatory and obscene
language towards a security guard. Two
witnesses, both of who were Ohio State Patrol
Troopers, corroborated the guard’s testimony.
Though the incident did not occur when the
grievant was on duty, it did occur in the public
area of the State building where the grievant’s
office was located and where State employees, as
well as the public were present. The employer
did not consider the grievant’s 22 years of
service and the arbitrator noted that there was no
obligation to do so because the grievant had
signed a Last Chance Agreement from a previous
disciplinary action which had been negotiated
and agreed to by both parties. 805
The grievant was charged with insubordination
and willful disobedience of a direct order – to
release medical information. The grievant was
given several opportunities to comply with the
order and refused on each occasion. The
arbitrator determined that no evidence presented
suggested any distinction or difference between
OCSEA employees and other employees