by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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