by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

confrontation with a resident. The confrontation ended with the grievant swinging a frame from a shirt hamper and damaging a ceiling tile. The arbitrator stated such behavior violated the employer’s work rules and that the grievant had been trained in those rules. However, the Union presented evidence that another employee at the facility had compiled a record of several incidents of workplace violence. He remained employed at the facility. The arbitrator noted an element of disparate treatment and overturned the removal. 898 The employer bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that Collins’ removal from his position for violation of ODJFS Rule F2 was for just cause in compliance with CBA Article 24. Rule F2 prohibits false, abusive, inflammatory, or obscene statements or gestures by any employee of ODJFS. Additionally, the discipline must be commensurate with the offense and not solely for punishment; it must be for “just cause”; it must follow the principles of progressive discipline; and it must not be disparate in nature. Here, the Union cited McDaniel v. Princeton City Schools Board of Education (45 Fed. Appx. 354: 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 16713), but the Arbitrator found that the Union’s reliance on McDaniel was misplaced. In contrast to McDaniel, the reasons for Collins’ removal remains the same, and no new additional charges were added stating that Collins did not have an opportunity to present full evidence surrounding the event. Only the charge classification was altered. Also unlike McDaniel, Collins had an opportunity to respond to all of the conduct that brought him to the predisciplinary hearing. Furthermore, the arbitrator held that the Union’s procedural argument still does not successfully show a violation of Collins’ procedural rights based on Cleveland Brd. Of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 547- 48 (1985). The Arbitrator found that the employer did not act arbitrarily or capriciously because the Grievant’s one email was inflammatory and borderline abusive, and his other “aggressive” emails occurred on the employer’s nickel as well. The language in Article 24.02 does not require nor is it intended for absolute adherence. The principles of aggressive discipline allow for leeway. Finally, under proper circumstances Collins would be entitled to mitigation; however, the facts of this case warrant no mitigation. Collins engaged in repeated offenses and made no effort to modify his behavior in response to progressive discipline, with understanding that his ‘active’ discipline would have a grave impact on future violations. The Union could not argue that Collins as a long-term employee had a good work record without any active discipline. Furthermore, as a long-term employee, Collins was clearly aware that his position required public trust and confidence. 899 The grievant was charged with submitting a false expense report. The arbitrator found the evidence overwhelming convincing that he was removed for just case. The grievant was unable to present any evidence to support his position. Hr admitted that he did not attend a scheduled meeting as he had indicated on his expense report. The arbitrator stated that the grievant’s account of what occurred on his alleged trip included premises his could not support with any evidence. The arbitrator found that the grievant submitted false expense reports. The disciplinary grid for the agency included removal as a penalty for this violation for a first offense. Although the grievant was a decorated veteran of the USAF and a good employee, the arbitrator noted that he made a series of mistakes which justify his removal. 901 The grievant was charged with allegedly submitting false documents about his work history to an outside certification institute, forging an ODOT employee’s initials on the paperwork. These actions resulted in an award of certification by the outside institute to the grievant which he used in an effort to obtain a promotion. The arbitrator found that the grievant was less than honest with co-workers who were assisting him in obtaining certification. It was problematic for the arbitrator that the grievant rejected responsibility for his actions which led to the removal. The arbitrator noted that the record contained a series of events that were not minor and covered an extensive period of time. Those actions outweighed length of service as a mitigating factor. The arbitrator also noted that the grievant had a fiduciary position as a PS II and his conduct demonstrated dishonesty and a manipulative approach for personal gain that warrants removal. 902 During her brief employment with the State of Ohio, the grievant accumulated a number of disciplines: an oral reprimand, a written reprimand, a three-day suspension and a five-day suspension. Violations included misplaced files, incomplete claims and claims which were processed improperly. The employer had been
aware of the grievant’s poor work performance for some time and the various disciplines were its attempts to correct the problem. The arbitrator found that the progressive disciplines which increased in severity did nothing to correct the grievant’s performance. The employer could not have reasonable confidence that the grievant’s work would reach an acceptable level. The discipline imposed was justified. 904 The grievant was charged with engaging in a sex act on school grounds in the grievant’s vehicle during school hours. The incident was reported in the local newspaper. The arbitrator found that evidence presented supported the allegations. The grievant compromised his position as a CO, brought discredit to his employer and engaged in immoral conduct when he solicited sex for money, brought the prostitute/drug offender on to school grounds, engaged in a sex act and then used his position with the agency to defend himself. The arbitrator stated that the grievant’s “lack of candor and lack of remorse shows him not to be taking responsibility for his own mistake or making a commitment to better safeguard his employer’s reputation and mission”. 905 The grievant was charged with a pattern of tardiness on multiple occasions after a 30-day suspension for similar offenses. The arbitrator found that the employer made every effort to assist the grievant in correcting her attendance issues. Management changed the grievant’s supervisor, changed her starting time repeatedly, allowed her to receive donated leave, and allowed her to bring her children to work on at least two occasions. The arbitrator was particularly disturbed that the grievant returned to her old pattern of tardiness within days of returning to work from a 30-day suspension. The grievant was unable to correct an obvious problem, even in the face of losing her position. She took no responsibility for her actions and did not admit that her employer had the right to expect her to come to work on time. The arbitrator doubted that another suspension of any length would correct the problem. 906 The grievance was sustained in part and denied in part. The grievant was reinstated without back pay. The grievant’s seniority was not to be diminished by the award. From the date of the grievant’s effective removal to the date of his reinstatement, the grievant was not entitled to any seniority related benefits such as overtime to which he otherwise would have been entitled, but for his removal. The grievant was charged with allegedly using profanity, being disrespectful to a superior and using excessive force in his attempt to break up a fight between two youths. The arbitrator held that the agency established that the grievant used the “F” word in referring to how he would handle any further improper physical contact by a youth. It was determined that the grievant was disrespectful towards his superior. The arbitrator found that the employer did not provide sufficient evidence to support the excessive force charge. Because the employer proved that the grievant had committed two of the charges leveled against him, the arbitrator found that some measure of discipline was warranted. The aggravating factors in this case were the grievant’s decision to use threatening, abusive language instead of allowing his Youth Behavior Incident Report to go through the process and his decision to insult his superior. He also continued to deny that he used profanity. The arbitrator noted that his decision were unfortunate because as a JCO, he had the responsibility to be a role model for the Youth at the facility. The mitigating factors included the grievant’s thirteen years of satisfactory state service and the fact that there were no active disciplines on his record. 907 The arbitrator found insufficient evidence to overturn the removal. The weight of the evidence established that the grievant used excessive force when he grabbed and pushed an inmate, absent any credible evidence that the inmate touched or physically threatened him. The grievant went beyond grabbing and subduing the inmate when he began to repeatedly strike the inmate in the head. His seemingly boastful attitude following the incident further supported the employer’s decision to remove the grievant from his position 908 The grievant was charged with allegedly carrying an unlicensed, concealed weapon in his travel bag. He was required to conduct training classes and it was necessary to stay at a hotel close to the training facility overnight. He discovered the weapon in his travel bag which he had placed in the bag for a previous camping trip. An incident with a sick coworker caused him to forget the weapon, which he placed in the hotel night stand upon discovery that he had the weapon with him. The next guest to stay in the room found the weapon turned it in to the front desk and the Agency was called. Additionally,
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 and 12:
The Arbitrator found that when the
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: oad, commonsensical guidelines abou
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?