by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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withdrawn and one was improper.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,