by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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,