by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the captain. The employer removed the grievant for misuse of his position for personal gain, and giving preferential treatment to an inmate, 44 days after the pre-disciplinary hearing, and he received notice of his removal on the 46th day after the pre-disciplinary hearing. The arbitrator held that the employer proved that the grievant offered the inmate personal and legal assistance in exchange for information. The investigation was proper as it was a full investigation and it was conducted by persons not reporting to anyone involved in the events. It was found that the investigation needed not be exhaustive and the hearing officer’s report need not contain all information, only relevant information, thus the grievance was denied. 372 The grievant was a Corrections Officer who was removed for watching inmates play cards while they were outside their housing unit. The grievant admitted this act to his sergeant. The pre-disciplinary hearing had been rescheduled due to the grievant’s absence and was held without the grievant or the employer’s representative present. The arbitrator found that because the union representative did not object to the absence of the employer’s representative that requirement had been waived. There was also no error by the employer in failing to produce inmates’ statements as they had not been used to support discipline. The removal order was timely as the 45 day limit does not start until a predisciplinary hearing is held, not merely scheduled. 377 The grievant was employed as a Salvage Processor who was responsible for signing off on forms after dangerous goods had been destroyed. He was removed for falsification of documents after it was found that he had signed off on forms for which the goods had not been destroyed. The arbitrator found that despite minor differences, the signature on the forms was that of the grievant. The employer was found to have violated just cause by not investigating the grievant’s allegation that the signature was forged, and by failing to provide information to the union so that it could investigate the incidents. The employer was found not to have met its burden of proof despite the grievant’s prior discipline. 398 The grievant had been a Drivers’ License Examiner for 13 months. He was removed for falsification when he changed an applicant’s score from failing to passing on a Commercial Drivers’ License examination. The arbitrator found that the grievant knew he was violating the employer’s rules and rejected the union’s mitigating factors that the grievant had no prior discipline and did not benefit from his acts. Falsification of license examination scores was found serious enough to warrant removal for the first offense. The arbitrator also rejected arguments of disparate treatment. The grievance was denied. 403 The grievant was removed for misuse of his position for personal gain after his supervisor noticed that the grievant, an investigator for the Bureau of Employment Services, had received an excessive number of personal telephone calls from a private investigator. The Ohio Highway Patrol conducted an investigation in which the supervisor turned over 130-150 notes from the grievant’s work area and it was discovered that the grievant had disclosed information to three private individuals, one of whom admitted paying the grievant. The arbitrator found that the employer proved that the grievant violated Ohio Revised Code section 4141.21 by disclosing confidential information for personal gain. The agency policy for this violation calls for removal. The employer’s evidence was uncontroverted and consisted of the investigating patrolman’s testimony, transcribed interviews of those who received the information, and the grievant’s supervisor’s testimony. The grievant’s 13 years seniority was an insufficient mitigating circumstance and the grievance was denied. 408 The arbitrator recognizes the employer's right to implement and enforce a drug policy but cautions that enforcement of such a policy cannot be done in violation of the provisions of the Contract. First, the arbitrator points out that the employer is not required to remove an employee upon his/her first drug offense. The arbitrator concluded that the discipline was not progressive in light of the grievant's past discipline. Further, the arbitrator finds that the phrase "in any way" does not include possession of drugs. As for the absenteeism problem, there is no doubt that it exists. However, removal is too severe a punishment for such actions. The grievance is sustained. The removal is set aside and reduced to a ten day suspension. This award is conditioned upon the grievant's participation in and compliance with her Employer's Employee Assistance Program. The grievant is further placed on notice that a second violation of the drug policy will warrant her removal. 429
The grievant was an investigator with the Department of Commerce who had been suspended for 5 days for ailing to follow his itinerary for travel and filing incorrect expense vouchers. The grievant’s itinerary indicated that he would be in Toledo on a Friday, and he submitted expense vouchers for the trip, however it was discovered that he worked at home during the day in question. The arbitrator found that the employer violated Section 24.04 by failing to provide witness lists and documents and not answering the grievants letters. Section 25.08 was not found to be violated. The employer’s selection of predisciplinary hearing officer was unwise because he had an interest in the outcome and that the investigation was incomplete and unfair. The arbitrator also found that the grievant’s itinerary was a contemplated itinerary and that he had informed his supervisor of schedule changes, however the grievant was AWOL as there was no provision for working at home. Disparate treatment was suspected by the arbitrator, who also noted that the grievant exhibited a contemptuous attitude towards management. The suspension was reduced to a 1 day suspension. 430 The Union’s contention that the pre-disciplinary hearing officer was not neutral and detached was unfounded. The Union has not shown that the investigation conducted by the State was perfunctory or that it led to a rushed judgment. 468 (1992-94 contract) No contractual language exists which requires the Employer to provide a third-step hearing officer who is anything other than a representative of the State. 468 (1992-94 contract) The grievant was removed for allegedly abusing a patient. The Arbitrator held the employer violated Article 24.04, which places an obligation on the employer to articulate the reasons for the contemplated discipline. Since the employer failed to articulate these reasons, the Union could never establish a legitimate defense. The Arbitrator reinstated the grievant. 580 (1994-97 contract) Under Article 24.04, the Employer could have delayed the grievant's pre-disciplinary hearing until after a full criminal investigation was completed. In this way, Management could have afforded themselves the opportunity to include the alleged threats made by the grievant into the original discipline charge. Because the meeting was not delayed, the Arbitrator held that the Employer must not have considered the threats serious enough to warrant discipline and rejected the admission of the threat-related evidence at the arbitration hearing. 618 (1997-2000 contract) Although the Union claimed that the predisciplinary hearing was not conducted in a timely fashion, the Arbitrator found that the procedural defect was not supported by the record. 622 (1997-2000 contract) Article 24.04 states that an Employer shall provide all witness and documentary information which will be used in a pre-disciplinary hearing to the Employee prior to the hearing. The Employer did not comply with this section but the Arbitrator held that the Grievant waived her rights under this section by answering questions about the incident. 634 (1997- 2000 contract) The grievant was charged with sexual misconduct with inmates and lying during the investigation of the charge. The arbitrator found that the employer substantiated the charges and the removal should stand. The arbitrator cited the grievant’s “gross abuse of his position as a Correction Officer and the sexual nature of his exploitative conduct” as “nothing short of unprincipled, heinous, and wholly intolerable”. 913 The grievant was charged with failure to make a physical head count of inmates at the facility after three previous counts had resulted in different figures. Following that incident, the grievant found two metal shanks, which he documented and secured. Prior to finding the shanks, the grievant found 16 pieces of metal hidden in a ceiling. He disposed of them in a secured receptacle which was not accessible to inmates. He did not report finding the metal. The Union argued that a procedural flaw occurred in this matter in that a second predisciplinary hearing was held and a second charge was leveled against the grievant, leading to his removal. The arbitrator found no procedural error. He found that when the Employer reconvened the pre-disciplinary hearing and that was not prohibited by the contract. He stated that if that were a procedural error, it was minimal at best and a decision could be reached on the merits of the case alone. The
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 and 152: equire support before one can estab
Page 153: is considered when fashioning a rem
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?