by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The grievant, a Therapeutic Program Worker, received a ten day suspension for sleeping on duty. A supervisor tried to awaken the grievant but was not successful, although the grievant had been heard talking to another employee shortly before the incident. The grievant had no prior discipline up to the time she had become a steward, then she received two verbal reprimands. Also her performance evaluations had been above average until the same time, at which point she was evaluated below average in several categories. Lastly, a paddle had been hanging in the supervisor’s lounge with the words “Union Buster” written on it. The arbitrator found that the grievant may have dozed off, but that the employer’s anti-union animus was the cause for the suspension. The paddle in the lounge was evidence of this and the employer had demonstrated reckless disregard for the union relations. The arbitrator held that the employer failed to properly apply its rules, thus, there was no just cause for the 10 day suspension. The discipline was reduced to a 1 day suspension. 400 The grievant had failed to complete several projects properly and on time and another employee had to complete them. She had also been instructed to set projects aside and focus on one but she continued to work on several projects. The grievant had prior discipline for poor performance including a 7 day suspension. The arbitrator found that the employer had proven just cause for the removal. The grievant was proven unable to perform her job over a period of years despite prior discipline. The fact that another employee completed the projects was found to be irrelevant. Removal was found to be commensurate with the offense because of the prior discipline and the work was found to have been within the grievant’s job description and she had been offered training. Thus, the grievance was denied. 402 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 a Psychiatric Attendant who had received prior discipline for refusing overtime and sleeping on duty. He refused mandatory overtime and a pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled. Before the meeting occurred, the grievant was found sleeping on duty. A 6 day suspension was ordered based on both incidents. The arbitrator found that despite the fact that the grievant had valid family obligations, he had a duty to inform the employer, rather than merely refuse mandated overtime and, thus was insubordinate. The employer failed to meet its burden of proof as to the sleeping incident, however due to the grievant’s prior discipline a 6 day suspension was warranted for insubordination. The grievance was denied. 404 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 o 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 While on disability leave in October 1990 the grievant, a Youth Leader, was arrested in Texas for possession of cocaine. After his return to work, he was sentenced to probation and he was fined. He was then arrested in Ohio for drugrelated domestic violence for which he pleaded guilty in June 1991 and received treatment in lieu of a conviction. The grievant was removed for his off-duty conduct. The grievant’s guilty plea in Texas was taken as an admission against interest by the arbitrator and the arbitrator also
considered the grievant’s guilty plea to drug related domestic violence. The arbitrator found that the grievant’s job as a Youth Leader was affected by his off-duty drug offenses because of he coworkers’ knowledge of the incidents. The employer was found not to have violated the contract by delaying discipline until after the proceedings in Texas had concluded, as the contract permits delays pending criminal proceedings. No procedural errors were found despite the fact that the employer did not inform the grievant of its investigation of him, nor permit him to enter an EAP to avoid discipline. No disparate treatment was proven as the employees compared to the grievant were involved in alcohol related incidents which were found to be different than drug-related offenses. Thus, the grievance was denied. 410 The grievant was a corrections Officer who had an alcohol dependency problem of which the employerwas aware. He had been charged twice for Driving Under the Influence, which caused him to miss work and he received a verbal reprimand. The grievant was absent from work from May 18th through the 21st and was removed for job abandonment. The arbitrator found that the grievant’s removal following a verbal reprimand was neither progressive nor commensurate and did not give notice to the grievant of the seriousness of his situation. It was also noted that progressive discipline and the EAP provision operate together under the contract. The grievant was reinstated pursuant to a last chance agreement with no back pay and the period he was off work is to be considered a suspension. 413 An inmate was involved in an incident on January 4, 1991 in which a Corrections Officer was injured. The inmate was found to have bruises on his face later in the day and an investigation ensued which was concluded on January 28th. A Use of Force committee investigated and reported to the warden on March 4th that the grievant had struck the inmate in retaliation for the inmate’s previous incident with the other CO on January 4th. The predisciplinary hearing as held on April 15, and 16, and the grievant’s removal was effective on May 29, 1991. The length of time between the incident and the grievant’s removal was found not to be a violation of the contract. The delay was caused by the investigation and was not prejudicial to the grievant. The arbitrator found that the employer met its burden of proof that the grievant abused the inmate. The employer’s witness was more credible than the grievant and the grievant was found to have motive to retaliate against the inmate. The grievance was denied. 421 The grievant was removed for failing to report off, or attend a paid, mandatory four-hour training session on a Saturday. The grievant had received 2 written reprimands and three suspensions within the 3 years prior to the incident. The arbitrator found that removal would be proper but for the mitigation factors present. The grievant had 23 years of service, and her supervisors testified that she was a competent employee. The arbitrator noted the surrounding circumstances of the grievance; the grievant was a mature black woman and the supervisor was a young white male and the absence was caused by an embarrassing medical condition. The removal was reduced to a 30 day suspension and the grievant was ordered to enroll into an EAP and the arbitrator retained jurisdiction regarding the last chance agreement. 422 The grievant was removed for unauthorized possession of state property when marking tape worth $96.00 was found in his trunk. The Columbus police discovered the tape, notified the employer and found that the tape was missing from storage. The arbitrator found that the late Step 3 response was insufficient to warrant a reduced penalty. The arbitrator also rejected the argument that the grievant obtained the property by “trash picking” with permission, and stated that the grievant was required to obtain consent to possess state property. It was also found that while the employer’s rules did not specifically address “trash picking” the grievant was on notice of the rule concerning possession of state property. The grievance was denied. 432 The grievant, a Therapeutic Program Worker, took $150 of client money for a field trip with the clients. The grievant was arrested en route and used the money for bail in order to return to work for his next shift. The grievant was questioned about the money before he could repay it, he offered to repay it when he was paid on Friday, but failed to offer payment until the next Monday. He was removed for Failure of Good Behavior. While the employer was found to have poorly communicated its rules concerning use of client funds, the grievant was
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 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: The grievant was a Corrections Offi
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?