by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Grievant was knowledgeable about DPS’ rules relating to leave and any future violation would act as an aggravating factor warranting his removal. 969 The Arbitrator found that the evidence and testimony clearly established that the Grievant committed numerous violations of the computer use policy on a regular basis. These included: a. installing a Palm Pilot on her work computer. b. maintaining non‐work related files on her department computer. c. accessing two non‐departmental email accounts from her computer d. using the computer to actively access shopping sites The Arbitrator rejected the charge of insubordination. The Arbitrator held that “dishonesty” was not a proper charge. It implies serious misconduct where an employee’s motive is often to obtain pay that he/she is not entitled to receive. The Grievant’s timesheets suggest that she simply recorded her regular starting, lunch, and ending times regardless of the actual times and none involved a claim for extra compensation. Furthermore, all the timesheets were approved by her supervisor. The prior five-day suspension for computer misuse suggests that the Grievant was familiar with the computer use policy and knew that further discipline would result from continued computer misuse. It also indicates that she failed to take advantage of the opportunity to correct her behavior. Despite the Grievant’s 13 years of state service, the Arbitrator held that the state had the right to remove her. The Grievant’s extensive violations of the computer use policy combined with the other less serious offenses support the state’s actions. Her prior five-day suspension for computer misuse removes any doubt that the state acted pursuant to its contractual authority. 1016 2.02 - Agreement Rights No violation where arbitrator not persuaded that discipline had discriminatory motive: 1 The grievant was a Corrections Officer removed for using vulgar language, conducting union business on work time, and fondling an inmate. The arbitrator rejected the claim that the Union had a right to question witnesses at the predisciplinary hearing. Nor did the employer violate Article 25.08 because the union made excessive document requests. The employer did violate Article 25.02 by not issuing a Step 3 response for six (6) months, however the grievant was not prejudiced. Therefore, the arbitrator found, because the inmate was more credible than the grievant, that just cause did exist for the removal. 366 The arbitrator rejected the Union’s argument that the grievant, who falsified his applications, resumes, and a recommendation letter, was discriminated against. The Union did not corroborate its allegations that the grievant was removed because he filed a multitude of grievances or because he was black. 453 (1992- 94 contract) Because of the inclusion within the collective bargaining agreement of Section 2.02 – Agreement Rights – there is a negotiated provision which guarantees to the members of the bargaining unit that the Agency will not be permitted to make arbitrary decision. 574 (1994- 97 contract) The grievant, a Juvenile Correction Officer at the Indian River School, was removed for job abandonment. The grievant failed to provide the employer with actual or constructive notice of his departure. The Union argued that the removal violated Article 2.02 because management had placed other employees on involuntary disability separations. The Arbitrator held that the Union failed to demonstrate that the employees placed on disability were similarly situated to the grievant. 590 (1994-97 contract) After the grievant met with two management representatives to discuss charges of falsifying his job application, he tendered his resignation. The arbitrator found that the grievant was not coerced or intimidated into resigning because the only conceivable threats that the employer could have made were already evident. As a result, the arbitrator ordered that the grievant’s resignation should stand. 686 (1997-2000 contract)
The Arbitrator found that when the grievant was asked whether she had ever been convicted of a felony she lied and when asked to submit a police record to supplement her application, she presented a police record from the county where the Employer is located. The Arbitrator stated that the grievant was very aware that the record she obtained would show no criminal convictions in that county. The Arbitrator found that these actions undermined her credibility. 722 The Arbitrator is unable to find the due process right to a pre-deprivation meeting with management in the 1994 Agreement. The fact that “consultation” language did not appear until the 1997 contract implies that the parties knew “good management reasons” did not demand pre-reassignment and prebid- denial conferences. 737 The grievant was a visitation/utility officer on second shift at the facility. She became pregnant and present her employer with a physician’s statement stating so and indicating her due date. He also advised her not to lift more than ten to fifteen pounds for the duration of her pregnancy. She was told by her employer she would not be allowed to work due to her lifting restrictions. The Union could not agree to her displacing other officers in violation of the Pick-A-Post Agreement and the warden could not agree to splitting her job between the visiting hall and the entrance building because the possibility of having to use force against an inmate or visitor would not be incompliance with her weighlifting limitations. She was told to apply disability. The arbitrator found that the employer made a good faith effort to accommodate the grievant’s restrictions. A “good faith” effort is all that is required by the contract. The parties met and both rejected the proposals submitted. Arbitrator noted that he grievant also submitted her charges to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. EEOC. OCRC took jurisdiction and found that that employer’s actions were not due the grievant’s pregnancy, but to her restrictions. The arbitrator concurred, stating that the grievant received her answer to Title VII issue from OCRC. 871. The Union asserted that the employer failed to create a temporary CO position to escort contractors outside the perimeter of the facility. The employer contended that it was a past practice to escort contractors within the perimeter of the facility only. The arbitrator found that the employer did not violate the contract or the PAP agreement when it decided not to create a temporary post. The arbitrator’s ruling was based on: 1) the work was completely performed outside of the perimeter of the facility and 2) it was performed during a period when there were no inmates present in the area of the contractors. 884 The Arbitrator held that the proper resolution of this issue lies within Article 19. To hold that Article 19 is inapplicable to the grievance would require the Arbitrator to ignore the parties’ CBA and the plain meaning of Article 19. The plain language of Article 19 does not forbid multiple grievances over a similar infraction, but only limits the remedy to individual claims. The Arbitrator held that the Agreement does not guarantee that classifications will remain unchanged throughout the life of the agreement. The analysis sought to resolve each claim needs to occur in accord with Article 19 to determine the appropriate remedy. 979 3.01 – Access The Arbitrator held that despite the Grievants 19 ½ years of service, her extension of her break, and more importantly, her dishonesty in the subsequent investigation, following closely her ten-day suspension for insubordination, gave him no alternative, but to deny the grievance and uphold the removal. The Arbitrator rejected the argument that the removal was inconsistent with progressive discipline because dishonesty and insubordination are different offenses. The Arbitrator found this contention contrary to the accepted view of Arbitrators regarding progressive discipline. Also, the agency policy stated that “discipline does not have to be for like offenses to be progressive.” 1040 ARTICLE 3 – UNION RIGHTS The right to representation in appeals of performance evaluations was relinquished as a bargaining table concession in the 1989 negotiations. 269
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: Article 2.01 requires that neither
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 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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?