by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
y her co-employees, not <strong>by</strong> the<br />
supervisor. The Arbitrator found that<br />
the Grievant exhibited disregard for the<br />
performance of her duties to care for the<br />
residents, a matter for which she had<br />
been amply warned on previous<br />
occasions. 1012<br />
The Arbitrator found that the evidence<br />
and testimony clearly established that<br />
the Grievant committed numerous<br />
violations of the computer use policy on<br />
a regular basis. These included:<br />
i. installing a Palm Pilot on her work<br />
computer.<br />
j. maintaining non‐work related files<br />
on her department computer.<br />
k. accessing two non‐departmental<br />
email accounts from her computer<br />
l. using the computer to actively<br />
access shopping sites<br />
The Arbitrator rejected the charge of<br />
insubordination. The Arbitrator held<br />
that “dishonesty” was not a proper<br />
charge. It implies serious misconduct<br />
where an employee’s motive is often to<br />
obtain pay that he/she is not entitled to<br />
receive. The Grievant’s timesheets<br />
suggest that she simply recorded her<br />
regular starting, lunch, and ending times<br />
regardless of the actual times and none<br />
involved a claim for extra<br />
compensation. Furthermore, all the<br />
timesheets were approved <strong>by</strong> her<br />
supervisor. The prior five-day<br />
suspension for computer misuse<br />
suggests that the Grievant was familiar<br />
with the computer use policy and knew<br />
that further discipline would result from<br />
continued computer misuse. It also<br />
indicates that she failed to take<br />
advantage of the opportunity to correct<br />
her behavior.<br />
Despite the Grievant’s 13 years of state<br />
service, the Arbitrator held that the state<br />
had the right to remove her. The<br />
Grievant’s extensive violations of the<br />
computer use policy combined with the<br />
other less serious offenses support the<br />
state’s actions. Her prior five-day<br />
suspension for computer misuse<br />
removes any doubt that the state acted<br />
pursuant to its contractual authority.<br />
1016<br />
While on a hunting trip and staying in<br />
Mt. Vernon, the Grievant was arrested<br />
for operating a vehicle while impaired.<br />
The Grievant became very belligerent<br />
and verbally abusive. A newspaper<br />
report regarding the incident was later<br />
published in Mt. Vernon. The<br />
Arbitrator held that the Employer had<br />
just cause to remove the Grievant. The<br />
Arbitrator was unwilling to give the<br />
Grievant a chance to establish that he<br />
was rehabilitated. Some actions or<br />
misconduct are so egregious that they<br />
amount to malum in se acts--acts which<br />
any reasonable person should know, if<br />
engaged in, will result in termination for<br />
a first offense. Progressive discipline<br />
principles do not apply in these<br />
situations and should not be expected.<br />
The Employer established a nexus for<br />
the off-duty misconduct. The<br />
Grievant’s behavior harmed the<br />
reputation of the Employer. It would<br />
be difficult or impossible to supervise<br />
inmates who may find out about the<br />
charges and their circumstances. This<br />
would potentially place other officers in<br />
jeopardy; an outcome the Arbitrator was<br />
unwilling to risk. 1025<br />
The Arbitrator held that the Employer<br />
had just cause to terminate the Grievant.<br />
The Grievant’s disciplinary record<br />
exhibited several progressive attempts<br />
to modify his behavior, with the hope<br />
that progressive penalties for the same<br />
offense might lead to positive<br />
performance outcomes. As such, the<br />
Grievant was placed on clear notice that<br />
continued identical misconduct would<br />
lead to removal. The Arbitrator also<br />
held that the record did not reflect any<br />
attempt to initiate having the Grievant<br />
enroll in an EAP program within five<br />
days of the pre-disciplinary meeting or<br />
prior to the imposition of discipline,<br />
whichever is later. This barred any<br />
attempts at mitigation. 1030<br />
The Grievant had entered into a Last<br />
Chance Agreement with the agency.<br />
She then violated the Corrective Action<br />
Standard, AWOL—No approved<br />
request for leave. The Arbitrator held<br />
that the Last Chance Agreement was<br />
fair, just, and reasonable. The Grievant