by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

cage as the second inmate was being uncuffed,
but he turned to walk away in order not to see
what happened. As he exited he claimed that he
saw Officers Mong and McCoy (the grievant)
overlooking the cage at the control booth. None
of the officers reported the incident, but
management became aware of it the following
morning and an investigation ensued. In his
interview and written statement, Officer Mong
stated that both he and the grievant were in the
control booth at the time of the incident. During
the arbitration, his testimony was consistent with
this statement, and on cross he stated that he was
“fairly sure” the grievant saw the incident but he
didn’t see her eyes because she was wearing dark
prescription glasses. Officer Tipton also gave a
statement during the investigation. He claimed
that as he exited the cage he looked up and saw
the grievant and Officer Mong in the control
booth. However, his testimony during
arbitration was contrary to this statement. He
stated that he saw only Officer Mong in the
control booth and the grievant was in the lighted
stairwell. On cross-examination he again stated
that he saw both officers in the control booth,
and on redirect, he claimed that Mong was
standing there alone. The arbitrator ruled that
this case turns on the credibility of the witnesses.
She was convinced by Mong’s testimony
because it was consistent with what he had stated
before, and she found that he had nothing to gain
by placing the grievant where she was not. On
the other hand, she found that Tipton’s testimony
was worthless. As evidenced from his first
interview, he is willing to lie to protect himself
and others. With respect to the dark glasses, the
arbitrator stated that if the Union is arguing that
they prove Mong could not see where the
grievant was looking, it is admitted that the
grievant was there to see the incident. But, the
grievant did not claim that she was there, but did
not see what had happened. For the foregoing
reasons, the arbitrator found that the grievant
was guilty, and since there were no mitigating
circumstances, the penalty was upheld. 826
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, he was removed from
his 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. The grievant entered the cage as
the second inmate was being uncuffed, but he
turned to walk away in order not to see what
happened. As he exited he claimed that he saw
Officers Mong and McCoy overlooking the cage
at the control booth. None of the officers
reported the incident, but management became
aware of it the following morning and an
investigation ensued. When he was first
interviewed later that day, the grievant denied
having any knowledge of what had transpired.
However, ten days later, he gave a written
statement and interview admitting to what he had
observed. The grievant was later terminated
from his position. The Union argued that the
punishment was not appropriate for the offense.
Officer Mong committed the same offense but he
received only five days suspension thought he
saw the fight and the grievant did not. In
addition, the grievant fully cooperated in the
investigation after his first interview. The
arbitrator ruled, however, that the grievant
cannot be compared to Office Mong because he
was not in the position to intervene.
Additionally, the fact that the grievant eventually
did tell the truth is not enough by itself to
mitigate the penalty. She concluded that both
offenses, failing to intervene while knowing
officers were putting inmates and staff in harm’s
way and then lying about it, are individually and
collectively terminable acts. Despite the fact that
the grievant did not have an active role in the
incident, his inaction threatened security and the
safety of the inmates as well. 827
At the conclusion of his Transitional Work
Program, the grievant provided a required return
to work slip from his physician which stated he
could return to work with no restrictions;
however, the doctor also stated the grievant
should work the day shift and no mandatory
overtime. The grievant was advised that if he
could not return to full duty he should other
benefits, i.e. workers compensation. The
grievant was ordered to work overtime which he
refused on three separate days. He was
subsequently late for roll call. His normal post
was taken by a co-worker. When he arrived he
was offered another post; he refused the post and
left the facility. The arbitrator concluded that all
JCOs, including the grievant, understood that
mandatory overtime was a requirement.
Evidence and witness statements proved that the
grievant left the facility upon being informed that
he could not work his regular post. The