by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

analytical, or statistical research methods. The Arbitrator rejected the claim that when the state denied her an interview for the Planner 3 position and awarded it to someone else, it engaged in sex and/or age discrimination in violation of Article 2. A large portion of the employees in the Emergency Management Agency are women and three of the top five leadership positions are held by women. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant failed to show that she satisfied the minimum qualifications for the Planner 3 position when she applied. The grievance was denied. 939 The Grievant orally and by e-mail communicated to her direct supervisor her intent to end the employment relationship, which was accompanied by packing her belongings. The Grievant was in a state of anxiety and emotional distress at the time she voiced her intention to resign and acted upon it. The evidence did not show that the Grievant was in such a deteriorated mental condition that she was rendered incapable of understanding what she was doing, or the consequences of what she was doing. Her workplace situation could not be found to be so intolerable that a resignation would be compelled. The Arbitrator held that the resignation was voluntary and not coerced. The Arbitrator held that the resignation was effective since the Employer had accepted the resignation before the Grievant made any efforts to rescind the resignation. The Arbitrator held that he Department of Agriculture did not have a legal duty under Administrative Code 123:1-25-02 to reinstate the Grievant This provision only creates a privilege on the part of the appointing authority to request a reinstatement. The administrative code provides that the employee “may be reinstated.” There is no right to be reinstated. The grievance was denied. 948 The Union filed separate grievances from Guernsey, Fairfield, Licking, Knox, Perry, and Muskingum Counties that were consolidated into a single case. Implicit in the authority to schedule employees is the ability to alter the work schedule, subject to the limitations in Article 13.07 that the work schedule was not made solely to avoid the payment of overtime. The Arbitrator found that there was no evidence that the schedule change was motivated by a desire to avoid overtime; therefore, no violation of the contract occurred. Based upon the weather forecast known to the Employer on February 12, 2007 justifiable reasons existed to roll into 12 hour shifts. Prior notification under Article 13.02 was not required. No entitlement existed that the employees were guaranteed 16- hour shifts under a snow/ice declaration. The Employer’s conduct did not violate Section 13.07(2)’s Agency specific language. The snow storm was a short term operational need. To conclude that a snow storm is not a short term need but that rain over an extended period of time is, would be nonsensical. The record consisted of over 500 pages of exhibits and three days of hearing. That record failed to indicate that the Employer violated the parties’ agreement. 997 The Arbitrator found that the Grievant committed the alleged misconduct; therefore, the Employer had just cause to discipline her. However, there was not just cause to remove her. Considering all the circumstances, the Grievant had an isolated and momentary lapse in judgment. There was no physical harm or dire consequences from the momentary lapse. Recent arbitration awards between the Parties, uniformly reinstated--without back pay-- employees involved in physical altercations more substantial that the Grievant’s. (See Arbitration Decisions: 971, 995, 996.) The Grievant was reinstated without back pay, but with seniority restored. 1034 The PSMQ at issue required Account Clerk 2’s to have six months experience in Workforce Management Systems and in the PeopleSoft system. The Arbitrator held that the State acted properly per its authority under Article 5. It acted reasonably considering the specialized knowledge required to fill the positions involved in the issuance of the PSMQ. In addition, the Arbitrator found that there was no harm to the bargaining unit. There were no bargaining unit positions lost as a result of this action. 1036 ARTICLE 6 – PROBATIONARY EMPLOYEES 6.01 – Probationary Periods
The grievant had a thirty-day time limit on filing her grievance starting from the date the grievant became or reasonably should have become aware of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance. The event giving rise to the grievance occurred when the gievant continued to be carried as a probationary employee after sixty days of employment. The grievant had thirty days from the date when she was worngfully listed as a probationary employee. The Union’s argument that the grievant was not harmed until she was later removed was dismissed. The arbitrator found that as soon as the grievant was kept on probationary status and did not receive the full protection and rights of seniority status that she was harmed. The employer is also not liable for the training of the employee in her right to bring a grievance. The employer did not act in bad faith to keep the grievant in the dark as to her rights. The employee also had worked for the State previously and had adequate time to discover the issue of her probationary status and raise it in a timely fashion. The grievance was not arbitrable since it was untimely 344 It was decided that the grievant was not a new State employee but she was a new employee of the agency. According to the Civil Service rules, employees of the State maintain certain benefits when they move from job to job, but the Union did not point out specific language showing that an employee moving from one state agency to another must always move at he same or greater wage rate. The new agency considered the grievant a new hire and it was generally accepted that she had a 120 day probationary period and presumably after successful completion, she would move up a step per Section 36.02 of the Agreement. The grievant’s claim that she merely transferred to the new agency was not supported. Article 17 of the Agreement defines promotions as moving to a higher pay range and a lateral transfer as a movement to a different position at the same pay range. It does not specify that a lateral transfer from one agency to another agency within the State must be at the same step within the same pay range. The employer did not transfer the grievant; she applied for a vacant position. 360 The grievant had held several less than permanent positions with the state since March 1989. In December 1990 the grievant bid on and received a Delivery Worker position from which he was removed as a probationary employee after 117 days. The grievant grieved the probationary removal, arguing that his previous less than permanent service should have counted towards the probationary period. The arbitrator found the grievance not arbitrable because it was untimely. The triggering event was found to have been the end of the shortened probationary period, not the removal. The union or the grievant were held obligated to discover when an employee’s probationary period may be abbreviated due to prior service. The employer was found to have no duty to notify a probationary employee of the grievant’s eligibility for a shortened probationary period when it is disputed. There was no intentional misrepresentation made by the employer, thus the employee waived his right to grieve the end of his probationary period and the employer was not estopped form removing the grievant. The grievance was not arbitrable. 411 The time at which the grievant was allegedly improperly classified as a probationary employee is the triggering event upon which to determine whether the grievance has been timely filed. 455 (1992-94 contract) Under Contract Article 6.01, the probationary period shall be 120 days for classifications paid at grades 1- 7 and grades 23-28 or 180 days for classifications paid at grades 8-12 and grades 29- 36. The positions of Disability Claims Adjudicator 1, Reclamation Inspector 1, and all Attorney classifications shall have a probationary period of one year. The probationary periods for Disability Claims Adjudicator 1 and Reclamation Inspector 1 could be changed to 1 year, but DHO 1 and 2 could not be changed because they did not have the word “Attorney” in their title. 553 (1994-97 contract) Section 6.01 of the collective bargaining agreement requires that correction officers serve a 180-day probationary period wherein the employer retains the right to remove the probationary employee. Because the Arbitrator found that the grievant was a probationary employee at the time of the removal, the employer did not have to show just cause to support the removal. 698 (1997-2000 contract) The Arbitrator determined that the grievant was on an initial probationary period at TICO and based his findings on the evidence that included the grievant’s signature on a Supplemental Employment Agreement that made reference to
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: determined that through Article 5,
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 and 154:
is considered when fashioning a rem
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?