by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

guilty plea; however, for the purposes of arbitration the Grievant’s Alford Plea did not establish that the Grievant used excessive force. In addition, the Arbitrator held that the Grievant did not violate any duty to report the use of force. The Grievant did have a clear and present duty to submit statements from youth when requested and violated Rule 3.8 and 5.1 when refusing to do so. The Arbitrator found that the termination of the Grievant was unreasonable. Under ordinary circumstances he would have reinstated the Grievant without back pay, but reinstatement could not occur due to the Alford plea. However, because of the number of violations and the defiant nature of his misconduct, the Grievant was not entitled to any monetary or non-monetary employment benefits. The grievance was denied. 968 The grievance was granted in part. The Grievant was reinstated, but was not entitled to back pay or any other economic benefit. The Grievant must enter into a Last Chance Agreement with DPS for two years and must successfully complete an appropriate program under the OEAP guidelines. If the Grievant failed to comply with any of the conditions he would be subject to immediate removal. The Employer waited 55 days to notify the Grievant that a problem existed with two assignments. The Arbitrator agreed that this delay was unreasonable under Article 24.02 and was not considered grounds to support removal. Given that his direct supervisors considered the Grievant a good worker, any conduct which could accelerate his removal should have been investigated in a timely manner. The Arbitrator found that sufficient evidence existed to infer that the Grievant’s conduct surrounding one incident--in which proper approval was not secured nor was the proper leave form submitted--was directly related to a severe medical condition. Twenty one years of apparent good service was an additional mitigating factor against his removal. DPS met its burden of proof that the Grievant violated DPS’ Work Rule 501.01(C) (10) (b) on two dates and that discipline was appropriate, but not removal. However, as a long-term employee the Grievant was knowledgeable about DPS’ rules relating to leave and any future violation would act as an aggravating factor warranting his removal. 969 The grievance was denied in part and upheld in part. The termination was converted to a 3- month suspension. The Grievant should be made whole for her lost wages and other benefits under the contract from the date of the end of the suspension to the date of her return to work. The Employer did not have just cause to terminate the Grievant, but did have just cause to suspend her for a lengthy suspension for accepting money from a resident. There was a sufficient basis to convince the arbitrator that the Grievant did accept money from a resident. The lax enforcement of Policy No. 4 lulled the employees into a sense of toleration by the Employer of acts that would otherwise be a violation of policy. This lax enforcement negates the expectation by the Grievant that termination would have occurred as a result of the acceptance of money from a resident. The age of the resident and the amount of money involved called for a lengthy suspension. The Arbitrator held that there was no evidence to support the claim that the Grievant had received a defective removal order and that the requirement that the Grievant be made aware of the reasons for the contemplated discipline was met. 970 The grievance was sustained in part and denied in part. The grievant was reinstated without back pay. However, his seniority was left intact. The grievant was not awarded any other benefit the interim of his removal. The grievant was charged with pushing and attempting to choke a youth inmate. The arbitrator found that the grievant used inappropriate force against the youth on three occasions. However, the removal was unreasonable in light of the grievant’s seventeen years of service and his discipline-free record. The arbitrator stated that a “healthy dose of discipline was clearly warranted to impress upon the grievant and any other JCOs of like mind “ that such behavior is unsatisfactory. 971 The grievance was sustained in part and denied in part. The Grievant’s removal was reduced to a three-month (3-month) suspension. The Agency was entitled to deduct from any back pay owed to the Grievant any and all wages he either did or could have earned with due diligence and a good-faith effort to secure alternative employment. The Grievant was entitled to Roll Call Pay, Shift Differential, and Holiday Premium Pay. He received overtime pay for any overtime that he could prove he normally would have worked based on his historical work record. He received any Vacation Leave, Sick Leave, and Personal Leave
that he would have accrued during the reinstatement period. Any leaves the Grievant had on the books and cashed out were restored to his balances. The Agency compensated the Grievant for any medical or dental costs he incurred during the reinstatement and for which he was not otherwise compensated. The Arbitrator held that the Agency failed to establish by preponderant evidence that the Grievant engaged in either sexual activity or sexual contact with a Youth. In addition, preponderant evidence in the record did not establish that the Grievant violated Rule 6.1, Rule 3.1, Rule 3.9, and 4.10. The Arbitrator concluded that the Youth was less credible than the Grievant. The Grievant’s refusal to submit to a polygraph test did not establish his guilt. The slight probative value of polygraphic examinations disqualifies them as independent evidence and relegates them to mere corroborative roles. Because the Agency established the Grievant’s failure to cooperate under Rule 3.8, some discipline was indicated. The strongest mitigative factor was the Grievant’s satisfactory and discipline-free work record. The major aggravative factor was the Grievant’s dismissive attitude toward the Agency’s administrative investigation. 972 The arbitrator found that when CO Watkins handcuffed inmate “X”, who was mentally ill, to inmate “Y”, a known homosexual, he committed an act of emotional abuse. While handcuffed together, inmate “Y” made sexually explicit comments to inmate “X”. The COs laughed at inmate “X” in an insensitive and humiliating manner. The situation escalated when CO Rawlings did not intervene in a timely manner. The conduct was determined to be emotionally abusive when viewed and analyzed by any reasonable observer. 974 laced 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 arbitrator held that just cause existed to discipline the Grievant and that the discipline was not excessive, arbitrary, or unreasonable. While being escorted back to his room, a Youth threw a trash can at the Grievant, resisted being placed on the wall, and began to tussle with the Grievant. Both fell to the floor, but the Youth returned to his feet. When the Grievant returned to his feet, he used his arm to retake the Youth to the floor. The arbitrator held that the he situation, although very serious, did not rise to the level that the youth was engaged in combative resistance. There was insufficient credible evidence to conclude that the Youth assaulted the Grievant while on the floor. The situation did not require that the Grievant gain physical control of the Youth by retaking him to the floor. No credible evidence existed to conclude that the Youth’s behavior while on his feet required the response displayed by the Grievant; therefore, the Grievant’s response was unreasonable and borderline punitive. In addition, the Grievant’s behavior could have seriously injured the Youth, and under these facts no mitigation was warranted. The Grievant’s behavior in carrying out a physical takedown when he was not in peril was sufficiently egregious to waive the longevity/good service arguments. 975 24.02 – Progressive Discipline 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 misp 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
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 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: with sleep apnea and begun treatmen
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?