by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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 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,
an issue of nepotism was raised because the
grievant’s wife was Superintendent of the
Agency. The Arbitrator found that the evidence
in the record did not prove that the spouse’s
presence as Superintendent somehow caused the
Agency’s penalty decision to be unreasonable,
arbitrary, and capricious or an abuse of
discretion. The Arbitrator determined that
management established that the grievant
committed the violation and that some measure
of discipline was warranted. The aggravating
factors in this case were: 1) the grievant brought
a deadly weapon onto state property. This was a
4 th level, and very serious violation; 2) the
grievant knew or should have known that the
weapon was in his travel bag; 3) The grievant
was the Agency’s only Training Officer and
should have exercised due care to comply with
all of the Agency’s rules and policies. The
mitigating factors included the grievant’s fifteen
years of satisfactory and sometimes exemplary
state service. The grievant also had no active
disciplines on his record. The grievant was
reinstated under a two-year Last Chance
Agreement in which he agreed not to convey any
kind of weapon, firearm, ammunition or
dangerous ordnance onto any state property.
Violation of the agreement would result in
termination. He received no back pay and his
seniority remained unaffected by the arbitrator’s
decision. 909
The grievant was discovered eating food that he
had not purchased, in a supermarket. When he
was approached by security and told he would
have to pay for the food, the grievant refused to
do so, using obscene language to emphasize his
point. He threatened the store’s security officer
stating that he would take the officer’s weapon.
He also attempted to use his State ID to
intimidate the security officer, store manager and
police officers who were summoned. The
arbitrator found that the grievant violated the
employer’s Standards of Employee Conduct and
failed to display exemplary behavior in the store.
The obscene language used was undignified and
humiliating to the store employees, law
enforcement and to the general public. The
aggravating factors in this grievance were the
obscene language and his
threatening/intimidating behavior. The grievant
also deliberately involved his employer and its
reputation when he presented his State ID in
hope of receiving favoritism during the incident.
Mitigating factors were the grievant’s twenty