by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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