by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

individual under the supervision of the
Department, or a member of the general public”)
by discussing and informing two inmates about
the workings of a new alarm system, “Spider
Alert”. The arbitrator found that the facts were
for the most part not in dispute. The Grievant
and other correction officers were trained in the
system. The Grievant had signed a Spider
Equipment Receipt that contained specific
guidelines and instructions concerning the
system. They were informed of the sensitivity of
the system and told not to take documents to
their posts, third floor, or home. The Grievant
and other officers were given further instructions
during roll call on March 4, 2002 concerning the
“Spider Alert” system. Shortly thereafter, while
the Grievant was walking the range, the Grievant
accidentally set off the alarm. The Grievant
contacted the other officer assigned within the
cellblock via the block cordless telephone to
discuss the alarm going off. During this
conversation, the Grievant began a separate
conversation with an inmate concerning the
alarm. The Grievant turned the telephone off,
preventing the fellow officer from hearing the
entire conversation between the Grievant and the
inmate. The same correction officer later
overheard the Grievant discussing the fifteen
(15) second delay used to cancel an accidental
alarm and other pertinent alarm information to
another inmate. The testimony from the other
officer concerning the Grievant’s conversation
with inmates was credible and admitted to a
great extent by the Grievant. The arbitrator
found the Grievant’s conduct to be of the sort
that does not require progressive discipline. The
Grievant’s actions were of the most egregious
type of security breach and far exceeding poor
judgment. The positions of the Union that
improper training was given or due process
violations occurred were also without merit.
823
The grievant was a Health Information Tech. 1
(HIT1) at the time he received a direct order to
box, label and log loose items in the admitting
area. He did not follow the direct order. Two
days later he was reclassified to a Correction
Officer. The action which resulted in the
grievant’s removal took place during the time the
grievant was an HIT1. He received the order via
email and when confronted by his superiors,
stated that he had performed the task when in
fact, he hadn’t. He was then verbally ordered to
complete the task. Five days later, the task was
performed by a co-worker who replaced the
grievant when he was reclassified. The arbitrator
determined that the grievant understood the
orders he received and refused to obey them.
Evidence showed that he understood the
directives but disobeyed them anyway. The
arbitrator found that the grievant’s conduct
warranted discipline but not removal. The
grievant’s twenty-one years of service were
mitigating factors in the arbitrator’s decision to
conditionally return the grievant to work.
Although the grievant’s work history was
tarnished by a prior discipline, after reviewing
the grievant’s record in its entirety, the evidence
supported reinstatement under certain conditions.
824
The grievant was charged with, and admitted to,
playing cards with inmates and leaving his area
unsupervised for a period of time. A
surveillance camera was unplugged during his
shift and an inmate received a tattoo while the
camera was off. The grievant did not report the
tattooing incident. The arbitrator gave the
grievant the benefit of the doubt in considering
his explanation for while the camera was off. He
was unaware that there was a camera and pulled
the plug so the inmate could use the outlet for a
power source for the tattoo gun. The arbitrator
found that the grievant was guilty of helping
inmates engage in prohibited behavior but was
not guilty of interfering with an investigation.
The State argued that it had no choice but to
remove the grievant because his actions made
him untrustworthy and an unfit CO; however, it
left him on the job for two months following the
discovery of his actions. He also had not
received a performance evaluation since 1999.
The arbitrator determined that the grievant was
guilty of actions warranting discipline, but those
actions did not fatally compromise his ability to
perform his duties as a CO. In light of his
service record, years of service and remorse, he
was entitled to learn from his mistakes. 825
On February 27, 2002, the grievant was working
second shift at the Toledo Correctional
Institution in the segregation unit control center.
Due to the ensuing events, she was removed
from her position as Correction Officer. The
institution has a policy prohibiting two
unsecured inmates being placed together in the
same recreation cage. Despite this policy, that
evening two officers placed two unsecured
segregation inmates together in a recreation cage
for the purpose of allowing them to settle their
differences. Officer Cole Tipton entered the