by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
ut for his removal. The grievant was charged<br />
with allegedly using profanity, being<br />
disrespectful to a superior and using excessive<br />
force in his attempt to break up a fight between<br />
two youths. The arbitrator held that the agency<br />
established that the grievant used the “F” word in<br />
referring to how he would handle any further<br />
improper physical contact <strong>by</strong> a youth. It was<br />
determined that the grievant was disrespectful<br />
towards his superior. The arbitrator found that<br />
the employer did not provide sufficient evidence<br />
to support the excessive force charge. Because<br />
the employer proved that the grievant had<br />
committed two of the charges leveled against<br />
him, the arbitrator found that some measure of<br />
discipline was warranted. The aggravating<br />
factors in this case were the grievant’s decision<br />
to use threatening, abusive language instead of<br />
allowing his Youth Behavior Incident Report to<br />
go through the process and his decision to insult<br />
his superior. He also continued to deny that he<br />
used profanity. The arbitrator noted that his<br />
decision were unfortunate because as a JCO, he<br />
had the responsibility to be a role model for the<br />
Youth at the facility. The mitigating factors<br />
included the grievant’s thirteen years of<br />
satisfactory state service and the fact that there<br />
were no active disciplines on his record. 907<br />
The grievant was charged with allegedly<br />
carrying an unlicensed, concealed weapon in his<br />
travel bag. He was required to conduct training<br />
classes and it was necessary to stay at a hotel<br />
close to the training facility overnight. He<br />
discovered the weapon in his travel bag, which<br />
he had placed in the bag for a previous camping<br />
trip. An incident with a sick coworker caused<br />
him to forget the weapon, which he placed in the<br />
hotel night stand upon discovery that he had the<br />
weapon with him. The next guest to stay in the<br />
room found the weapon, turned it in to the front<br />
desk and the Agency was called. Additionally,<br />
an issue of nepotism was raised because the<br />
grievant’s wife was Superintendent of the<br />
Agency. The Arbitrator found that the evidence<br />
in the record did not prove that the spouse’s<br />
presence as Superintendent somehow caused the<br />
Agency’s penalty decision to be unreasonable,<br />
arbitrary, and capricious or an abuse of<br />
discretion. The Arbitrator determined that<br />
management established that the grievant<br />
committed the violation and that some measure<br />
of discipline was warranted. The aggravating<br />
factors in this case were: 1) the grievant brought<br />
a deadly weapon onto state property. This was a<br />
4 th level, and very serious violation; 2) the<br />
grievant knew or should have known that the<br />
weapon was in his travel bag; 3) The grievant<br />
was the Agency’s only Training Officer and<br />
should have exercised due care to comply with<br />
all of the Agency’s rules and policies. The<br />
mitigating factors included the grievant’s fifteen<br />
years of satisfactory and sometimes exemplary<br />
state service. The grievant also had no active<br />
disciplines on his record. The grievant was<br />
reinstated under a two-year Last Chance<br />
Agreement in which he agreed not to convey any<br />
kind of weapon, firearm, ammunition or<br />
dangerous ordnance onto any state property.<br />
Violation of the agreement would result in<br />
termination. He received no back pay and his<br />
seniority remained unaffected <strong>by</strong> the arbitrator’s<br />
decision. 909<br />
The grievant was discovered eating food that he<br />
had not purchased, in a supermarket. When he<br />
was approached <strong>by</strong> security and told he would<br />
have to pay for the food, the grievant refused to<br />
do so, using obscene language to emphasize his<br />
point. He threatened the store’s security officer<br />
stating that he would take the officer’s weapon.<br />
He also attempted to use his State ID to<br />
intimidate the security officer, store manager and<br />
police officers who were summoned. The<br />
arbitrator found that the grievant violated the<br />
employer’s Standards of Employee Conduct and<br />
failed to display exemplary behavior in the store.<br />
The obscene language used was undignified and<br />
humiliating to the store employees, law<br />
enforcement and to the general public. The<br />
aggravating factors in this grievance were the<br />
obscene language and his<br />
threatening/intimidating behavior. The grievant<br />
also deliberately involved his employer and its<br />
reputation when he presented his State ID in<br />
hope of receiving favoritism during the incident.<br />
Mitigating factors were the grievant’s twenty<br />
years of state service. The arbitrator found that<br />
the aggravating factors outweigh mitigating<br />
factors in this instance, and the removal was for<br />
just cause. 910<br />
The grievant was charged with sexual<br />
misconduct with inmates and lying during the<br />
investigation of the charge. The arbitrator found<br />
that the employer substantiated the charges and<br />
the removal should stand. The arbitrator cited<br />
the grievant’s “gross abuse of his position as a<br />
Correction Officer and the sexual nature of his<br />
exploitative conduct” as “nothing short of<br />
unprincipled, heinous, and wholly intolerable”.<br />
913