by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

found to have notice of its provisions. The arbitrator found that the grievant lacked the intent to steal the money, however the grievant’s failure to repay was not excused, thus just cause was found for discipline. Because of the grievant’s prior disciplinary record, removal was held commensurate with the offense and the grievance was denied. 433 The grievant was a Mail Clerk messenger whose responsibilities included making deliveries outside the office. The grievant had bought a bottle of vodka, was involved in a traffic accident, failed to complete a breathalyzer test and was charged with Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol. The grievant’s guilt was uncontested and the arbitrator found that no valid mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a reduction of the penalty. The grievant’s denial of responsibility for her drinking problem and failure to enroll into an EAP were noted by the arbitrator. The arbitrator stated that the grievant’s improved behavior after her removal cannot be considered in the just cause analysis. Only the facts known to the person imposing discipline at the time the discipline is imposed may be considered at arbitration. The arbitrator found no disparate treatment as the employees compared with he grievant had different prior discipline than the grievant, thus, there was just cause for her removal. 434 The grievant was employed by the Bureau of Workers’ compensation as a Data Technician 2. He had been disciplined repeatedly for sleeping at work and he brought in medication he was taking for a sleeping disorder to show management. The grievant was removed for sleeping at work. The grievant had valid medical excuses for his sleeping, which the employer was aware of. The arbitrator stated that the grievant was ill and should have been placed on disability leave rather than being disciplined. No just cause for removal was found, however the grievant was ordered to go on disability leave, if it is available, otherwise he must resign. 436 The grievant was a cosmetologist who was removed for neglect of duty, dishonesty and failure of good behavior. She was seen away from her shop at the facility, off of state property, without having permission to conduct personal business. The arbitrator found the grievant’s explanation not credible due to the fact that the grievant did not produce the person who she claimed was mistaken for her. There were also discrepancies in the grievant’s story of what happened and the analysis of travel time. The arbitrator found no mitigating circumstances, thus the grievance was denied. 438 The grievant was a custodian for the Ohio School for the Blind who was removed for the theft of a track suit. The arbitrator looked to the Hurst decision for the standards applicable to cases of theft. It was found that while the grievant did carry the item out of the facility, no intent to steal was proven; removal of state property was proven, not theft. The arbitrator found no procedural error in that the same person recommended discipline and acted as the Step 3 designee. Because the employer failed to meet its burden of proof, the removal was reduced to a 30 day suspension with the arbitrator retaining jurisdiction to resolve differences over back pay and benefits. 439 Article 24.05 expressly grants the Employer the right to delay discipline when a criminal investigation is underway. 470 (1992-94 contract) The grievant allegedly had repeated sexual contact with an inmate, who was housed in a correctional facility. Article 24.05 states that disciplinary measures imposed shall be reasonable and commensurate with the offense and shall not be used solely for punishment. The Arbitrator held that the repeated actions of the grievant were so reprehensible and dangerous that removal was in keeping with the serious nature of the violations. 604 (1994-97 contract) The grievant accepted a $400 loan from the resident at the Ohio Veterans Home. The grievant agreed to repay the loan upon receipt of her income tax refund. The resident contacted the grievant's administrator in order to obtain his help in collecting the remaining $375 of the loan, of which the grievant had repaid the resident $25. The Administrator charged the grievant with a violation of the Home's disciplinary rules as the grievant allegedly directed insulting language at the resident as well as accepted a loan from the resident in direct contradiction of the Home's rules. Article 24.05 states "Disciplinary measures shall be reasonable and commensurate with the offense and shall not be used solely for punishment". The Union argued that the grievant was being used as an example and that her removal was contrary to Article
24.05. The Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the violation of this disciplinary rule does not always result in removal or even discipline. Since the grievant was a long-term employee who has never received severe discipline and has no current discipline in her file, she is entitled to extra consideration in a discharge case. The Arbitrator stated that the State failed to establish that the resident suffered any harm as a result of the grievant's violation. The grievant was reinstated with no loss of seniority and the removal was converted to a two week suspension. However, back pay was awarded to the grievant less a two-week disciplinary suspension and less any interim earnings. 613 The Arbitrator held that the grievant's actions did constitute sexual harassment and did create a hostile work environment. Because sexual harassment is deemed to be a "Malum in se" offense—i.e. an act that is implicitly wrong— and because of the detrimental effect it has on the work place, the Arbitrator ruled that removal was the appropriate discipline for this charge. 618 The Union argued that the State conducted too lengthy of an investigation and never informed the grievant that he was being investigated. Further, the Union contended that the alleged Highway Patrol investigation was a "smokescreen" in order to promote further delay in imposing discipline. Therefore, the Union argued that the 45-day time limit under Article 24.05 was exceeded. The State argued that the burden was on the Union to raise the issue prior to arbitration. The Arbitrator did not respond directly to the issue. 619 The procedural defect raised by the Union was not supported by the record. The grievant's uncertain health condition and the uncertainty involving any criminal investigation justified any delay in carrying out discipline. 622 The grievant's ex-husband requested that the grievant get temporary license plates for a car he had purchased. The grievant, a Public Information Assistant I at the Bureau of Motor Vehicle's Columbus Licensing Agency, completed the required forms and signed her exhusband's name. The next day the grievant's supervisor reviewed the prior day's application forms and noticed that the grievant's exhusband's signature was done in the grievant's own distinctive handwriting. The application form did not include a power of attorney form, which is required when one person signs another person's name on an application. The Arbitrator held that the Employer had a legitimate interest in deterring employees from signing the names of other people on department documents and applications and, therefore, ruled that the discipline imposed was commensurate with the offense. 624 The final incidents leading to the grievant's removal occurred in January and February. On March 5, an investigatory meeting was held to discuss the grievant's work performance. On March 26 a predisciplinary conference was held, and the grievant was discharged on March 29. The Arbitrator found these dates to indicate that the disciplinary process was conducted in a prompt and timely manner in accordance with the Agreement. 626 The grievant was charged with Failure of Good Behavior and Neglect of Duty after several specific allegations, including failure to follow scripted openings and closings for telephone calls, addressing callers as "babe" and "honey", failing to verify information and answering the phone without responding causing callers to hang up. The Arbitrator held that the Employer did not have just cause to remove the grievant, even though the charges were supported by the evidence, but that the grievant's removal should be reduced to a four week suspension because of the Employer's failure to use progressive discipline. 635 The Arbitrator suggested that employees needed an explicit policy stating that taking fill dirt was a dischargeable offense because the dirt is a “free good.” She found that the grievant did not feel he did anything wrong because the value of the dirt was so inconsequential. Consequently, the Arbitrator found that the grievant was not guilty of theft because he did not intend to deprive the State of value, and the State violated the CBA in removing the grievant from his position. 710 24.05 – Pre-Discipline The grievance was sustained in part and denied in part. The grievant was reinstated without back pay. The grievant’s seniority was not to be diminished by the award. From the date of the grievant’s effective removal to the date of his reinstatement, the grievant was not entitled to any seniority related benefits such as overtime to which he otherwise would have been entitled,
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 and 160: The grievant was a Corrections Offi
Page 161: considered the grievant’s guilty
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?