by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

a coworker. In the first the Grievant was joking
and it should have been obvious to the coworker.
Given the questions about the coworker’s view
of the first incident and her failure to report the
alleged misconduct until the next day, the
Arbitrator could not accept the coworker’s
testimony on the second incident. Because he
was out of line when he confronted the coworker
in a rude and aggressive manner, the Grievant
merited some disciplinary action for the third
incident. In addition, the Arbitrator did not
believe the Employer established that the
Grievant made false or abusive statements
regarding the coworker. The strict adherence to
the schedule of penalties in the Standards of
Employee Conduct sometimes results in a
penalty that is not commensurate with the
offense and the employee’s overall record. The
Grievant was a 12-year employee with good job
evaluations and his offense was minor. The
Arbitrator believed the employer was prepared to
return the Grievant to work on a last chance
agreement. The Arbitrator denied the request for
full back pay based on the Grievant’s failure to
contact the employer or to authorize the union to
contact the employer on his behalf. Back pay
was granted from the date of the third step
grievance meeting where the employer should
have attempted to implement the alternative to
removal it had proposed earlier. 932
The grievance was upheld. The Grievant was
reinstated with full seniority, benefits, and back
pay less five days for the Rule 25 violation. The
Rule 42 violation was removed from his record.
A heavy master lock left the Grievant’s hand and
struck an inmate in the groin area. This occurred
in the context of an argument that resulted in the
Grievant firing the inmate. There were no
reliable witnesses to the incident. The accusing
inmate waited to report the incident for over 24
hours, thus giving time to conspire with other
inmates present at the time. The nature of the
injuries suggests a different source for the
injuries. The Arbitrator could not tell if the
incident occurred as the inmate said or as the
Grievant said; therefore, the State’s case lacked
the required quantum of proof on the physical
abuse charge. The Grievant struck an inmate
while engaged in horseplay and should have
reported it and did not. Since the abuse charge
was unproven and the Grievant’s record only had
a 2-day fine on it, he received a 5-day penalty for
tes. In addition, the Employer had many
opportunities to correct the Grievant’s behavior,
and did not. The Union suggested that the
the Rule 25 violation. The Arbitrator found that
the Grievant was removed without just cause.
933
The grievant, a TPW with six years of service
and no active disciplines, was involved in a
verbal altercation with a co-worker which
escalated to physical confrontation. The grievant
allegedly approached the co-worker and swung
her clenched fist at her. The employer
demonstrated that the grievant was clearly
violent and threatening towards her co-worker.
The video taped evidence proved to be very
crucial for the arbitrator. It showed the grievant
as the aggressor during the incident. The coworker
made no advances towards the grievant.
The arbitrator noted that the co-worker may have
been a problem employee who did not perform
her duties responsibly, and the supervisor may
have prevented the dispute by giving clear and
concise work direction. However, these
possibilities did not negate the workplace
violence displayed by the grievant. The
arbitrator found that the employer had just cause
to remove the grievant. 935
The Grievant was a Corrections Officer who was
terminated for violating a work rule that
prohibits employees from giving preferential
treatment to any individual under their
supervision, Rule 45 (A & )(B). Beginning in
early 2005, the Grievant began exchanging food
for information on drug related activity in the
institution. At the time of the discipline, the
Grievant had no prior discipline on his record.
The Employer argued that the Grievant’s coworkers
who were aware of the conduct and
failed to report were not disciplined despite a
duty to report because they trusted and believed
the Grievant to be exchanging food for
information that would lead to a drug bust.
These employees reported the conduct when it
was evident a drug bust was not making
progress. The Employer acknowledged their
conduct was wrong but their conduct was also
explainable.The Union argued the discipline was
excessive and not based on just cause. The
Union argued the Grievant’s co-workers’
testimonies were elicited through subpoena and
should be considered suspect. Further, none of
the witnesses personally observed CO Jackson
give any contraband to inma
Employer had tacitly authorized COs to partake
in drug investigations because it was aware that