by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

estrictions on these rights in the form of notice and other due process obligations. 270 Granted, the Superintendent has discretion to accept the resignation or allow it to be rescinded. But that discretion had to be exercised judiciously with careful consideration of all the attending facts. Because the Agency’s evidence did not confirm that due consideration was given the grievant’s timely attempt to rescind, the demand for reinstatement was conditionally sustained. The grievant was reinstated but without monetary relief. 278 The grievant was fired solely because his prison sentence forced him to violate a work rule. The grievant was incarcerated for drunk driving and did not report to work for three consecutive days which the employer deemed job abandonment. The decision to execute the penalty gave no consideration to the length and quality of the grievant’s work record or any other mitigation factors. Despite the employer’s arguments to the contrary, the action was automatic. The employer argued that the rule was reasonable on its face and the arbitrator agreed. The arbitrator also decided that the demands of just cause are almost never met when discharge is based entirely on a rule violation. Management must be cautions in inflicting the penalty. It must perform a judicious study of the employee, his/her record, and the distinctive circumstances attending the misconduct. The employer must determine whether or not elemental justice and the true needs of the employer would be better served by corrective rather than terminal discipline. It must bear in mind that just-cause standards circumscribe management rights; they do not expand them. Just cause means that the employer can remove only those employees that are not salvageable. 305 A grievance dealing with job abolishments and layoffs is arbitrable. The jurisdiction of an arbitrator extends only to those matters which the parties by their Agreement employ the arbitrator to hear. Article 5 is not without limitations, “Such rights shall be exercised in a manner which is not inconsistent with this Agreement.” Section 25.01 enables an arbitrator to decide any difference, complaint or dispute effecting terms and/or conditions of employment regarding the application, meaning or interpretation of the Agreement. The procedural and/or substantive underpinnings of an abolishment decision dramatically impact employee’s terms and conditions of employment. A limitation on the powers of an arbitrator need to be clearly and unequivocally articulated; a reserved rights clause does not serve as an adequate bar. 340 The arbitrator was unwilling to substitute his judgment for the employer’s in deciding between managerial alternatives. 340 Under 37.03 it is mandated that the employer pay overtime or reimburse travel expenses. The work “required” in Section 37.03 was defined by the arbitrator as required by the employer. If the employer requires the employee to attend then the employer is required to pay. The employer’s choice to require or not to require attendance to a meeting is entirely within the Article 5 management rights. 345 The transfer without posting the position is different from the situation where the employer may use managerial discretion (#329). In this situation there is specific language governing and limiting the rights of management in Article 17 of the Agreement. 349 Operational needs cannot be used to bypass the work area requirements contained in the negotiated work area “Memorandum of Understanding”. 448 (1992-94 contract) The Employer’s ability to implement scheduling changes is restricted by the “work area” language negotiated by the parties in the “Memorandum of Understanding.” This was supported by the job groupings contained in the pick-a-posting and the grievant’s, job description. To disregard an employees pick-a-post selection by changing a work area would directly violate the negotiated work area provisos. 448 (1992-94 contract) It is widely recognized that an employer has the right to adopt and enforce reasonable work rules, not in conflict with the Contract. 474 (1992-94 contract) The grievant was removed for excessive absenteeism. The arbitrator stated that the grievant’s absenteeism was extraordinary as was management’s failure to discipline the grievant concerning her repetitive absenteeism. The arbitrator found that the fact that the grievant used all of her paid leave and failed to apply for leave without pay, shielded management from the consequences of its laxness. It was
determined that through Article 5, management has clear authority to remove the grievant for just cause even though her absenteeism was not due to misconduct if it was excessive. The arbitrator found that the grievant’s numerous absences coupled with the fact that she did not file for workers’ compensation until after termination, and never applied for unpaid leave, supported management’s decision to remove her. 791 The grievant was charged with various alleged violations including unexcused tardiness, AWOL, and Failure of Good Behavior for not following the directions of a superior when he was told to take a midday lunch break before going to his next appointment. He chose not to take the break and to proceed to his next appointment. The arbitrator found that the initial determination by the employer that the AWOL and Failure of Good Behavior charges were “serious” was correct. However, these charges were ultimately found to have been improperly leveled against the grievant. The unexcused tardiness allegation was considered diminished in severity by the fact that some of the tardiness charges were simply in error, others were withdrawn and one was improper. The arbitrator found that the employer gave proper weight to the insubordination charge and that the remaining tardiness charge was recidivist in nature. He found that the charge of Exercising Poor Judgment was proper in this instance because the offense followed specific counseling regarding how to handle his lunch break. This charge was concededly less serious than insubordination and the 10-day suspension was reduced to an 8-day suspension. 809 The grievant was given a 10-day suspension for various alleged violations including Neglect of Duty, Insubordination, Exercising Poor Judgment; Failure of Good Behavior and Working Excess Hours Without Authorization. The Union argued that the same person conducted the third step proceeding, the predisciplinary meeting, another third step meeting and also prepared the notice of the predisciplinary meeting notice. In essence, the grievant’s “Accuser, Judge and Employer Representative.” The arbitrator determined that there was no conflict and that the contract does not require that different individuals preside over the various steps in the process. He noted that the pre-disciplinary meeting was not an adjudicatory hearing, stating that it is described in Article 24.04 as a meeting. The arbitrator found that five examination reports were not submitted by the grievant. The supervisor was “extraordinarily patient with the grievant” and gave him several reminders to submit the examination reports. The grievant clearly understood he was to submit the reports. The grievant’s failure to submit the reports was a failure to perform a fundamental part of his job. The Employer failed to make its case with regards to the grievant’s time sheets. The employer did not show just cause to discipline the grievant for working excess hours without authorization. Though the time sheet was not clear, it was obvious that the grievant was not claiming hours beyond his scheduled hours. The arbitrator determined that there was no just cause for Working in Excess Poor Judgment, Failure of Good Behavior and Exercising Poor Judgment; however, he found just cause for Insubordination and Neglect of Duty. The arbitrator found the 10-day suspension reasonable. The decision by the employer to suspend the grievant for 10 days in this case was based in part on an act of insubordination that occurred approximately one month prior to the charges in this matter. 854 The arbitrator found that the employer did not violate Appendix Q-Correction Officer Pick-A- Post. The employer was able to demonstrate through evidence and testimony that a series of unforeseen circumstances existed generated by the desired closing of the Lima Correctional Institution. As a Consequence, these circumstances provided a valid contractual basis for the changes in the Pick-A-Post agreements. He noted that a determination regarding the propriety of Appendix Q, B Pick-A-Post need not be reached. 860 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 While the Grievant claimed to have the necessary background in research methods in her summary of her qualifications, the information contained in her application and resume did not support her claim. She failed to show any experience with operational, mathematical,
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: hardship when an employee was on Un
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?