by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

y the arbitrator. If the Union desired witnesses, it had the right to subpoena them. The Union had no reasonable expectation of relying on the employer to help the Union’s case. The Union is entitled to demand that the employer provide it with available witnesses and documents under Section 25.08 of the Agreement. 302 The Union objected that the State withheld certain documents and protested their admittance into evidence. When the arbitrator sustained the Union’s objection and refused to admit the documents into evidence this was deemed a complete remedy for the employer’s violation of the disclosure requirements. By excluding the material from the arbitration, the arbitrator did not allow the evidence to be used to support discipline. 302 Assessing claims of due-process violations should be carried out case-by-case, with attention to the question of whether the employee and/or the Union was prejudiced by an omission. It is conceivable that an agency might substantially and successfully perform its 24.04 obligations even though it errs in overlooking some of the minutia. This does not mean that 24.04 can be dismissed by the employer or that its procedures are discretionary. They are contractual directives which, if not fulfilled, may well produce an arbitral award summarily overturning the most deserved discipline. 302 The employer must provide the full and complete witness statements before the Pre-Disciplinary Hearing, not summaries of the witnesses statements. The rationale that the State provided of protecting the youth was nebulous and failed to overcome the clear language of Section 24.04. Altered or unavailable evidence can be severely prejudicial to the Union’s effort to defend the grievant. The arbitrator would have reinstated the grievant without back pay but because of the State’s violations back pay was awarded after the 181st day of the grievant’s removal. 308 A basic requisite of just cause is a fair investigation conducted by the employer prior to the imposition of discipline. Even though the employer turned the actual investigation over to police officer, a reasonable action in a prison escape situation, such delegation does not relieve the employer of a duty to review that investigation for accuracy and fairness. The investigation was determined by the arbitrator to be conducted unfairly. The Trooper in charge focused all his efforts on proving the grievant was guilty and did not even conduct a true investigation. 314 The employee’s right to Union representation under Section 24.04 of the Agreement will arise only if the employee requests representation and if the employee has reasonable grounds to believe that the interview may be use to support the disciplinary action against him/her. The arbitrator found that in defining the words “investigatory interview” the phrase refers solely to an investigatory interview conducted by an employer which might lead to discipline; the phrase is not intended to cover a State Police investigation which might lead to conviction for a criminal offense. 325 The terms of the agreement are not binding on parties external to the Agreement. Section 24.04 of the Agreement does not contemplate a criminal investigation and the right to Union representation applies solely to the employeremployee relationship. The term “investigatory interview” applies solely to the parties of the Agreement and to the bargaining unit members of represented by the Union. 325 In this case there was no “investigatory interview” as considered under Section 24.04 but the arbitrator would not decide whether there would be a violation if a supervisor was present during a State Police investigation and used the information to discipline the grievant. 325 A criminal investigation is beyond the four corners of the Agreement between the parties. 325 The arbitrator does not have the authority to indicate to the State Highway Police where it may or may not conduct its investigations. 325 The arbitrator was disturbed that no interview of the grievant was conducted during the investigation of possible abuse. The grievant’s reports and presence at the pre-disciplinary meeting mitigate this lapse to some extent. For an employer to be fair and have credibility in its disciplinary actions it must conform no only to the contractual procedures but also to the rules and guidelines it, itself, has established. 326 The employer violated Section 24.04 of the Agreement by not making the youths statements and photographs available to the Union and this
is considered when fashioning a remedy. The conference report was held to be discoverable once the final disciplinary decision has been made and the grievance is filed. 326 There was no investigatory interview when the Highway Patrol merely asked for permission to search the cars of the grievants. 334 The Superintendent’s procedural errors: failing to disclose the sourced of the information that the grievant was a felon, using a personal unofficial source to find the grievant’s criminal record, failing to carry out a full and fair investigation, and failing to attend the predisciplinary hearing without excuse were not enough to overcome the grievant’s conduct of falsifying information on his job application. The dismissal was upheld. The grievant was not deemed dismissed until the date of the arbitration hearing when he finally was afforded his due process rights under Section 24.04. 354 Management did not conduct a fair and thorough investigation. While management succeeded in substantiating grievant’s technical violation of the procedures for verifying his inability to work, management did not go the next step and confirm whether or not the employee was indeed able to work. Management made no effort to confirm the doctor’s statement that the grievant offered that stated the grievant was unable to work. Management also failed to contact either the doctor or the grievant to notify them of the unacceptability of the doctor’s statement. 356 ODOT agency rules pertaining to witnesses in the pre-disciplinary hearing are more specific that the language of the Agreement, Section 24.04. Witnesses might have helped the Union in the predisciplinary hearing. The hearing officer even commented that the grievant’s side of the story had no corroboration. The hearing officer indicated that he discounted the grievant’s testimony because it was not supported by witnesses – the same witnesses that the agency would not permit the Union to call. It follows that his was not entirely fair. This does not call for the arbitrator to annul the discipline. The only objective or the hearing was to determine if just cause for discipline existed. It is not the officer’s place to determine the severity of the discipline. Grievant’s testimony, even if entirely true, would not have made a difference. The grievant’s testimony was pregnant with admissions of misconduct. 357 The grievant’s misconduct was turned up almost two years after the incident. The Union argued that this discipline, a thirty day suspension, violated Section24.04 of the Agreement. The discipline may not be used as a punishment. The arbitrator decided that it is reasonable to presume that a penalty issued years after the occurrence will not correct the behavior which is sought to be changed; its sole or predominant effect will be retribution. The presumption, however, is a rebuttable one. Grievant’s testimony revealed that her violation was never corrected; she believed she was entitled to recommend her unqualified relatives because the boss did it. The discipline continued to have a corrective element. 358 The grievant was a Corrections Officer removed for using vulgar language, conducting union business on work time, and fondling an inmate. The arbitrator rejected the claim that the Union had the right to question witnesses at the predisciplinary hearing. Nor did the employer violate Article 25.08 because the union made excessive document requests. The employer did violate Article 25.02 by not issuing a Step 3 response for six (6) months, however the grievant was not prejudiced. Therefore, the arbitrator found, because the inmate was more credible than the grievant, that just cause did exist for the removal. 366 The grievant was involved in a check-cashing scheme involving stolen state checks from another agency, along with two other state employees. His role was that of an intermediary between the person who stole, and the person who cashed the checks. He served 45 days of a criminal sentence. The grievant was found to be deeply involved with the scheme and received a substantial portion of the proceeds. The violations occurred while the grievant was offduty, however they were found to be connected to the grievant’s job as theft of state property is harm to the employer. The grievant was found to not be subjected to disparate treatment when compared to other employees not removed for absenteeism while incarcerated: The other employees cited for disparate treatment purposes had not stolen state property. 370 The grievant was a Corrections Officer, as was his wife. She had filed sexual harassment charges against a captain at the facility. The grievant and the grievant’s wife’s attorney contacted an inmate to obtain information about
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 and 148: was knowledgeable of the corrective
Page 149 and 150: 24.04 - Pre-Discipline supervisor.
Page 151: equire support before one can estab
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?