by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.02 – Stewards Negotiating history indicates that the employer had opposed any pay for stewards when traveling or away from the facility where they work. In negotiating the contract, the State only yielded to allow that there would be an exception for unusual circumstances. It is the usual circumstance that pre-disciplinary conferences for Muskingum County are held in Licking County. Therefore, the steward cannot receive pay for time and travel to the pre-disciplinary conference in this case. 143 In a grievance dealing with meeting space, (Section 3.04) the arbitrator cited various subsidies provided in the Agreement. The employer subsidizes the time stewards are allowed off to work on Union business. 346 3.04 – Meeting Space The employer has agreed to give subsidies to the Union in the form of Section 3.02 (stewards allowed time for Union business), 3.05 bulletin boards, 3.06 free use of State mail system and 3.11 allowing space for filing cabinets for Union business and the right to meeting space under 3.04. The employer must not interfere in internal Union matters. (See Ohio Revised Code 4117.11) The arbitrator observed that the State’s willingness to allow local Union committees but not County Boards to meet in its facilities comes perilously close to interference. In the Step 2 response the Department’s designee learned about intra-Union strife that was none of his or management’s business. 346 The language of Section 3.04 specifically states “the Union” is to be granted meeting space,” the Agreement does not differentiate between the local Union committees and any other Union organization like the Executive Board. 346 The employer must only grant meeting space that is “feasible.” The Union’s requests for meeting space “will not be unreasonably denied.” The employer’s argument that security guards would have to be hired to keep the Board members away from a lab is not convincing. The Board members were adults and it would only take a simple instruction to limit the area where the Board was allowed to meet. The employer was directed to cease and desist from applying an interpretation of Section 3.04 which excludes County Executive Boards or any other subdivisions of the Union from meeting space in State facilities. Such space is to be granted as long as it is feasible. No Union request for meeting space will be unreasonably denied. 346 3.05 – Bulletin Boards The arbitrator cited the use of bulletin boards as a subsidy provided by the employer under the Agreement. 346 3.06 – Mail Service The arbitrator cited the free use of State mail system as a bargained for employer subsidy. 346 3.10 – Union Leave The arbitrator distinguishes between the language of article 3.10 which identifies situations when the union president shall be granted leave and Article 31.01(A) which pertains to unpaid leaves of absence for employees serving as union representatives and Officers. 497 (1992-94 contract) Concerned that an excessive number of employees were receiving time off duty for Union business, the State informed the Union that it would release no more than two (2) employees per institution pursuant to the language in Article 3.10 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Said language was modified during the 2002-2003 negotiations limiting releases to two (2) from the same office, institution or division in the same county. An annotated version included the language: “Reasonable standard shall apply to all leave requests,” and read in part: “Leave request shall take into account shifts, classifications and work areas.” The Agreement, along with the annotations, was accepted by both the membership and the State. Subsequently, the Union requested leave for five (5) members from the Gallipolis Developmental Center to attend an Assembly meeting. The State requested a reduction to two (2) members. The Union refused and the State then denied release to all of the individuals requesting leave. The arbitrator determined that the Agreement clearly states that the employer is to apply a standard of reasonableness in acting upon requests for union leave and must take into account those individuals working on different shifts and in different classifications. The State did not show
hardship when an employee was on Union leave. The arbitrator noted that the State must be mindful of the Contract when denying Union leave and provide an explanation for the denial when one is requested by the Union. If the explanation is not satisfactory to the Union, the issue may be grieved. 844 3.11 – Union Requests for Time Off The arbitrator listed the space for filing cabinets for Union business as an employer subsidy provided by the Agreement. 346 ARTICLE 5 - MANAGEMENT RIGHTS This article is modified by language found elsewhere in the agreement. 55 Longstanding principles of contract construction holds that specific language must be given more weight than general language in determining the meaning of the agreement. 55 The employer has an inherent right to direct the work force. The employer is entitled to give orders and employees are obliged to obey. Except in exceptional circumstances, if an employee believes that an order violates his rights, he should “obey now, grieve later.” 123 Generally, many arbitrators have recognized that unless the agreement says otherwise, the right to schedule overtime remains in management. This “right” of management can be limited if the union can prove that scheduling changes have been implemented to avoid the payment of overtime. Article 5 and ORC 4117.08(c) clearly provide the employer with the right to determine matters of inherent managerial policy: maintain and improve the efficiency of operations: and to schedule employees. Thus, these provisions allow the employer to alter work schedules to improve efficiency based on operational needs. Sections 13.01 and 13.02 underscore the employer’s ability to schedule work. Section 13.02 defines work schedule as “an employee’s assigned shift.” Obviously, if the employer can make work schedule assignments, the employer can also establish work schedules. 149 Management has the power under article 5 to determine where the report-in location is. The employer must look at the nature of the work and must use a non-discriminatory rationale. 13.06 says that “employees who work from their homes, shall have their homes as a report-in location.” Presumably, if an employee words at or in her house, that would be her report-in location. However, that supplies and records are kept at home, that correspondence is received at home, or that the employee has no designated office and does “field” type at several locations, is not a sufficient basis to conclude that he employee works for home. If a substantial amount of the work in a person’s job description is done at home, the home may be designated as the report-in location. The common and logical concept of a report-in location is a place where the employee goes in order to report-in, ready to commence to perform his job. 160 The employer retains the right to manage its operation in a manner which is consistent with the various provisions set forth in that agreement. The inherent rights of management include scheduling work, assigning employees and operating efficiently. Management’s authority in this regard has been recognized by many arbitrators, including Arbitrator Pincus in the Kinney decision. Arbitrator Pincus held that the State has the right to establish work schedules and to alter original work schedules based upon operational needs. This arbitrator agrees and is of the further opinion that Article 13 suggests that the parties anticipated that work schedules would be changed. Section 13.07 restricts management’s right to change a work schedule when it can be shown that the schedule was arbitrarily changed to avoid overtime, as in the Holton case. The wording of §13.07, paragraph 7 further suggests that the employer may change employee’s schedules for operational needs. 169 Among the rights of Management set forth in Article5 of the Contract is the exclusive authority to determine the personnel by which governmental operations are to be conducted. This vested right, together with the authority to declare or not declare job openings under §17.02, accords the agency the discretion to vacate the position and not fill it again. 242 It is axiomatic that the employer had every right to promulgate new policies or attempt to improve efficiencies by strictly adhering to present policies. These rights are codified in Article 5 but they are not totally unfettered. Article 24 and Section 43.03 place certain
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 and 10: Article 2.01 requires that neither
Page 11: The Arbitrator found that when the
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?