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.
the captain. The employer removed the grievant<br />
for misuse of his position for personal gain, and<br />
giving preferential treatment to an inmate, 44<br />
days after the pre-disciplinary hearing, and he<br />
received notice of his removal on the 46th day<br />
after the pre-disciplinary hearing. The arbitrator<br />
held that the employer proved that the grievant<br />
offered the inmate personal and legal assistance<br />
in exchange for information. The investigation<br />
was proper as it was a full investigation and it<br />
was conducted <strong>by</strong> persons not reporting to<br />
anyone involved in the events. It was found that<br />
the investigation needed not be exhaustive and<br />
the hearing officer’s report need not contain all<br />
information, only relevant information, thus the<br />
grievance was denied. 372<br />
The grievant was a Corrections Officer who was<br />
removed for watching inmates play cards while<br />
they were outside their housing unit. The<br />
grievant admitted this act to his sergeant. The<br />
pre-disciplinary hearing had been rescheduled<br />
due to the grievant’s absence and was held<br />
without the grievant or the employer’s<br />
representative present. The arbitrator found that<br />
because the union representative did not object to<br />
the absence of the employer’s representative that<br />
requirement had been waived. There was also no<br />
error <strong>by</strong> the employer in failing to produce<br />
inmates’ statements as they had not been used to<br />
support discipline. The removal order was timely<br />
as the 45 day limit does not start until a predisciplinary<br />
hearing is held, not merely<br />
scheduled. 377<br />
The grievant was employed as a Salvage<br />
Processor who was responsible for signing off on<br />
forms after dangerous goods had been destroyed.<br />
He was removed for falsification of documents<br />
after it was found that he had signed off on forms<br />
for which the goods had not been destroyed. The<br />
arbitrator found that despite minor differences,<br />
the signature on the forms was that of the<br />
grievant. The employer was found to have<br />
violated just cause <strong>by</strong> not investigating the<br />
grievant’s allegation that the signature was<br />
forged, and <strong>by</strong> failing to provide information to<br />
the union so that it could investigate the<br />
incidents. The employer was found not to have<br />
met its burden of proof despite the grievant’s<br />
prior discipline. 398<br />
The grievant had been a Drivers’ License<br />
Examiner for 13 months. He was removed for<br />
falsification when he changed an applicant’s<br />
score from failing to passing on a Commercial<br />
Drivers’ License examination. The arbitrator<br />
found that the grievant knew he was violating the<br />
employer’s rules and rejected the union’s<br />
mitigating factors that the grievant had no prior<br />
discipline and did not benefit from his acts.<br />
Falsification of license examination scores was<br />
found serious enough to warrant removal for the<br />
first offense. The arbitrator also rejected<br />
arguments of disparate treatment. The grievance<br />
was denied. 403<br />
The grievant was removed for misuse of his<br />
position for personal gain after his supervisor<br />
noticed that the grievant, an investigator for the<br />
Bureau of Employment Services, had received an<br />
excessive number of personal telephone calls<br />
from a private investigator. The Ohio Highway<br />
Patrol conducted an investigation in which the<br />
supervisor turned over 130-150 notes from the<br />
grievant’s work area and it was discovered that<br />
the grievant had disclosed information to three<br />
private individuals, one of whom admitted<br />
paying the grievant. The arbitrator found that the<br />
employer proved that the grievant violated Ohio<br />
Revised Code section 4141.21 <strong>by</strong> disclosing<br />
confidential information for personal gain. The<br />
agency policy for this violation calls for removal.<br />
The employer’s evidence was uncontroverted<br />
and consisted of the investigating patrolman’s<br />
testimony, transcribed interviews of those who<br />
received the information, and the grievant’s<br />
supervisor’s testimony. The grievant’s 13 years<br />
seniority was an insufficient mitigating<br />
circumstance and the grievance was denied. 408<br />
The arbitrator recognizes the employer's right to<br />
implement and enforce a drug policy but<br />
cautions that enforcement of such a policy<br />
cannot be done in violation of the provisions of<br />
the <strong>Contract</strong>. First, the arbitrator points out that<br />
the employer is not required to remove an<br />
employee upon his/her first drug offense. The<br />
arbitrator concluded that the discipline was not<br />
progressive in light of the grievant's past<br />
discipline. Further, the arbitrator finds that the<br />
phrase "in any way" does not include possession<br />
of drugs. As for the absenteeism problem, there<br />
is no doubt that it exists. However, removal is<br />
too severe a punishment for such actions. The<br />
grievance is sustained. The removal is set aside<br />
and reduced to a ten day suspension. This award<br />
is conditioned upon the grievant's participation in<br />
and compliance with her Employer's Employee<br />
Assistance Program. The grievant is further<br />
placed on notice that a second violation of the<br />
drug policy will warrant her removal. 429