by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

24.03 – Supervisory Intimidation Precludes employer from holding over the head of an employee his knowledge of an event which may give rise to the imposition of discipline. 1 Violation not established where employee wasworried but the employer’s behavior was not shown to be harassment or intimidation. 1 The Union failed to present evidence of supervisory intimidation, discrimination on the basis of handicap (alcoholism) or disparate treatment. 441 (1992-94 contract) 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, analytical, or statistical research methods. The Arbitrator rejected the claim that when the state denied her an interview for the Planner 3 position and awarded it to someone else, it engaged in sex and/or age discrimination in violation of Article 2. A large portion of the employees in the Emergency Management Agency are women and three of the top five leadership positions are held by women .The Arbitrator held that the Grievant failed to show that she satisfied the minimum qualifications for the Planner 3 position when she applied. The grievance was denied. 939 Insubordination is a serious offense. The Grievant’s misconduct took place in a correctional facility where following orders is particularly important. The very next day the Grievant violated policies and procedures when she left a youth unattended. The Grievant’s disciplinary history was a major factor supporting termination—she had received a 12- day suspension on January 19, 2005. The Arbitrator rejected the claims that the Grievant was the victim of disparate treatment; that the imposition of discipline was delayed; and that the employer was “stacking” charges against the Grievant in order to justify her termination. The Union was unable to show how the delay prejudiced the Grievant’s case or violated the contract. The decision to combine two incidents appeared to be reasonable. The disciplinary record of another JCO involved in leaving the youth unattended justified the different treatment. The Arbitrator concluded that the Grievant’s discharge was for just cause and was in compliance with the collective bargaining agreement. 942 The Arbitrator held that the proper resolution of this issue lies within Article 19. To hold that Article 19 is inapplicable to the grievance would require the Arbitrator to ignore the parties’ CBA and the plain meaning of Article 19. The plain language of Article 19 does not forbid multiple grievances over a similar infraction, but only limits the remedy to individual claims. The Arbitrator held that the Agreement does not guarantee that classifications will remain unchanged throughout the life of the agreement. The analysis sought to resolve each claim needs to occur in accord with Article 19 to determine the appropriate remedy. 979 The Arbitrator found that the Grievant told her co-worker that she was taking a bathroom break at 6:30 a.m., left her assigned work area, and did not return until 7:30 a.m. This length of time was outside the right to take bathroom breaks, and therefore, the Grievant had a duty to notify her supervisor. Failing to notify the supervisor would have given rise to a duty to notify the grounds office supervisor who is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The Grievant’s prior discipline record should have put her on notice of the seriousness of the offense. The supervisor should have raised the matter of the absence with the Grievant sooner, but there was nothing in the record to show that this failure in any way inhibited the case presented by the Union, or enhanced the case presented by the Employer. The Arbitrator held that there was no proof that the discharge was tainted by any claim of due process or unfairness, when the same supervisor conducted both the fact-finding and the investigation. The most damaging testimony to the Grievant was presented by her co-employees, not by the
24.04 - Pre-Discipline supervisor. The Arbitrator found that the Grievant exhibited disregard for the performance of her duties to care for the residents, a matter for which she had been amply warned on previous occasions. 1012 Arbitrator ordered employer to reinstate grievantwithout back pay where employer had violated grievant’s right to a pre-disciplinary conference by being derelict in fulfilling its responsibility to schedule and conduct the conference: 7 Employer was found derelict in scheduling predisciplinary conference where employer had solicited other employees for pre-disciplinary conferences during working hours and the employer’s records indicated that grievant had been present at work for 8 consecutive days after management’s initial attempt to contact grievant and 3 consecutive days after the final attempt: 7 The right to a pre-disciplinary conference existed prior to the contract and was negotiated into the contract by the parties. 7 It is well known that the “appointing authority” for the purposes of invoking discipline is the superintendent [warden], not the deputy superintendent for custody. 15 Where certain documents may not have been the ultimate basis for discipline, but were available to manager who imposed the discipline, the documents must be provided under 24.04 since they are documents used to support “possible” disciplinary action. 39 While this section could be narrowly construed to pertain only to the pre-disciplinary hearing, a broad construction is in keeping with the concept of fairness. 53 This section allows the employer to wait until the predisciplinary meeting to provide a list of witnesses and documents in support of employer’s charges. Where the employer does not reply on a particular document, he need not supply the complete document. 106 The requirement that employer give grievant sufficient notice of the charges is not satisfied where grievant is given a variety of documents which she must integrate in order to conclude the specific reasons for the removal. Specificity is particularly important in abuse and neglect cases. In addition, the employer must properly delineate the possible form of discipline, especially where the employer feels that mitigating or aggravating circumstances support the issuance of a major penalty rather than progressive penalties. 108 NOTE: The Union was able to win this case at the arbitration level but the State of Ohio was successful in getting the decision vacated. The Union was unsuccessful in appealing this award all the way to the Ohio Supreme Court. Thus, this decision has been vacated. Since the grievant did not request the presence of a union steward during the interview, the State did not violate Section 24.04. 168 Prior to the pre-disciplinary hearing, management had recommended a 5 day suspension. The grievant ultimately received a 15 day suspension. The arbitrator held that the increase in the suspension is not in violation of 24.04. The section provides, in relevant part, that prior to the meeting, the grievant is to be informed in writing of the possible form of discipline. The word “possible” means “something that may or may not be true or actual”. 168 Given the gravity of the offense, abuse of a patient, I find that it was so self-evident that discharge was well within the realm of possibility as a form of discipline, that a specific spelling out of the same was not necessary to comply with 24.04. 192 The employer is not required to provide witnesses’ statements, investigatory reports, and incident reports at or prior to the pre-disciplinary conference. Section 24.04, which is titled “predisciplinary,” only requires the employer to furnish a list of witnesses and documents that will be relied upon in imposing discipline. This comports with the generally accepted view that pre-disciplinary hearings are usually not considered to be “full blown”. 192 The employer violated due process when it relied upon the statements of a witness at the predisciplinary conference, given that the witness’s name was not included on the list of witnesses furnished by the employer. The violation denied the union of its opportunity to
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 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: was knowledgeable of the corrective
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?