by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

particularly in light of layoffs, bumping and
transfers. 841
The grievant sustained two injuries at work both
in an attempt to restrain youths who refused to
follow directives. The grievant followed the
application process for OIL benefits. The
employer presented photographs to show the
grievant coaching football while on disability
and receiving benefits. He was removed for
filing false information on his application. The
arbitrator concluded that the activity displayed in
the evidence presented did not demonstrate that
the grievant participated in strenuous activity
similar to the activity required to perform his job
at the youth facility. He did not come into
physical contact with the players. The grievant’s
injuries were due to the use of force with youths
at the facility. No evidence was submitted to
establish that the grievant submitted false data.
842
The grievant was charged with corresponding
with an inmate and being dishonest about the
relationship when interviewed. The arbitrator
found that inconsistencies in the grievant’s two
interviews raised questions about his
trustworthiness. Although the arbitrator noted
that the grievant appeared to be a compassionate
person, his judgment and suitability as a
Correction Officer was very doubtful. 843
The grievant was responsible for making
corrections to employees’ payroll records. The
employer had a verbal work rule, which stated
that employees were not permitted to make
changes in their own accounts. The grievant was
charged with deleting sixteen hours of leave
usage from her balance. Computer records
showed that the grievant’s user ID was used to
make the deletions. At the time, the grievant was
at her computer and logged on under her own ID
and password. The arbitrator found the
circumstantial evidence to be very strong against
the grievant. The computer records, inconsistent
statements, in addition to the grievants
suspicious inquiry regarding whether a coworker’s
ID would be the last to update the
grievant’s account, discredit the grievant. The
arbitrator concluded that the grievant more likely
than not deleted the leave usages from her
balance.The arbitrator stated, “When an
employee who occupies such a position of trust
engages in misconduct that is so strongly linked
to the core of her duties, the bond of trust and
confidence is permanently ruptured.” He opined
that no measure of progressive discipline would
likely renew the employer’s trust in the grievant.
847
The grievant was charged with violating several
rules/regulations, mainly acts of insubordination.
Instead of removal, the employer, the Union and
the grievant were ordered to hold the discipline
in abeyance pending completion of an EAP. The
grievant was also moved to a new area with a
new supervisor. The evidence showed that the
grievant failed to comply with the agreement by
not maintaining contact with EAP. The
arbitrator found the grievant’s “flat refusal to
follow reasonable and proper directives and her
blatant defiance of her supervisor’s
authority…inexcusable.” The arbitrator noted
that the minor violations alone were not serious
but in totality with the continued pattern of
insubordination they took on greater
significance. He did not find sufficient evidence
that the grievant clocked-in” for another
employee. 848
The grievant was a Training Officer with
seventeen years of service with the State of Ohio,
with an impeccable work record, no disciplines
and several letters of commendation. He
received information that a Parole Officer (PO)
was driving on a suspended driver’s license from
the PO’s partner (and friend of the grievant).
This information originated via telephone to the
PO’s partner from a Municipal Court
Clerk/Police Officer. The PO’s partner did not
wish to become involved and asked the grievant
to relay the information to the proper people.
When he took this information to the PO’s
supervisor, he was advised to obtain and present
proof of this allegation. The grievant contacted
the Municipal Court Clerk/Police Officer who
provided a LEADS printout to him. The
grievant erased the key number from the printout
in an attempt to protect the identity of the
Officer. The employer contended that the
grievant’s conduct involved unauthorized use,
release or misuse of information, that he
interfered with an official investigation and that
his actions could prohibit a public employee
from performing his/her duties. The Union
argued that the PO’s supervisor’s advice to
obtain proof of the allegation was an implicit
authorization to do just that. The arbitrator
determined that the employer did not establish
proof of all of the alleged violations leveled
against the grievant. The one violation
established by the employer – erasing the key