by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

procedural error. He found that when the
Employer reconvened the pre-disciplinary
hearing and that was not prohibited by the
contract. He stated that if that were a procedural
error, it was minimal at best and a decision could
be reached on the merits of the case alone. The
grievant was an experienced Correction Officer
and well-versed in the detection of contraband
which was evidenced by his numerous
commendations. The arbitrator found that he
grievant made a judgment when he found the
metal blanks and placed them in a secured
receptacle. Although the grievant’s decision
may have been erroneous, the arbitrator noted
that there are no precise definitions for “hot
trash” versus contraband. In his decision, the
arbitrator stated, “As ambiguity exists
concerning the treatment of contraband found by
Officers discharge for disposing of the metal
blanks rather than reporting them is
inappropriate.” The grievant removal was
reduced to a written warning for failure to report
contraband. All references to his discharge were
to be stricken from his personnel record. Back
pay was made at straight time minus any interim
earnings. 914
The grievance was granted in part and denied in
part. The removal was reduced to a fifteen (15)
day suspension. The Grievant’s record will only
reflect the charge of Failure to Follow Policies
and Procedures. The grievant was awarded back
pay minus the fifteen days; his seniority and all
other benefits were restored. The grievant was
charged with physically striking a youth inmate.
The arbitrator found that although the youth was
not seriously hurt, he could have been badly
injured. The Grievant had options which could
have been used in an effort to avoid
confrontation. Discipline short of removal was
warranted. The award issued by the arbitrator
was meant to correct the Grievant’s behavior and
to emphasize “discretion is often the better part
of valor when it comes to handling dangerous
and difficult juvenile inmates.” 915
The grievant was reinstated to her former
position with seniority but without back pay and
other benefits. Her request for medical expenses
was also denied. Her record was also adjusted to
reflect an unpaid disciplinary suspension. The
grievant was charged with failing to stop a
physical altercation between two inmates. She
also allegedly stopped a co-worker from
intervening. The arbitrator found that the
employer substantiated the charges. It was noted
that the employer’s delay in its investigation and
report could have been detrimental, not only to
the employer’s case, but also to the Grievant’s;
however, the Union did not claim undue harm
was done to the Grievant. Therefore, the issue of
timeliness had little bearing upon the decision.
The delay was seen as a technical error. The
arbitrator found that the grievant made a mistake
in judgment and should be given the opportunity
to learn from her mistake. Removal was too
harsh. 916
The grievant had numerous disciplines in his
record including a removal. The disciplines
centered on attendance issues. The removal was
converted into a Last Chance Agreement (LCA)
which specified that if the LCA was violated the
grievant would be removed. Approximately
three and one half months following the
execution of the LCA, the grievant was fifty-two
minutes tardy for work. He was subsequently
removed. The arbitrator found that the LCA was
negotiated in good faith and prohibited conduct
which included tardiness. There was no
evidence presented to indicate that an effort was
made to nullify the LCA. There were no
mitigating factors to conclude that the grievant’s
removal was not proper. 921
The grievant was charged with failing to provide
a nexus form to his employer regarding the
incarceration of his brother. He was also
charged with threatening an inmate with bodily
harm. The employer failed to prove that the
grievant did not inform it of his relationship with
an individual under the supervision of the State
of Ohio. However, the employer provided
substantial proof that the grievant threatened an
inmate. The grievant had only been a fulltime
correction officer for seven months prior to the
incident. There were no mitigating factors to
warrant reducing the removal to a lesser
discipline. 922
A grievant was charged with failing to perform
cell checks. The arbitrator found that the
condition of the body and the filthy condition of
the cell indicate that if the grievant had made the
two rounds per hour as required, the inmate’s
suicide attempt would have been discovered
much earlier. The grievant was a “short-term”
employee with a prior discipline for inattention
to duty. The arbitrator found no mitigating
factors to warrant reducing the removal to a
lesser discipline. 923