by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The grievant was employed as a Salvage Processor who was responsible for signing off on forms after dangerous goods had been destroyed. He was removed for falsification of documents after it was found that he had signed off on forms for which the goods had not been destroyed. The arbitrator found that despite minor differences, the signature on the forms was that of the grievant. The employer was found to have violated just cause by not investigating the grievant allegation that the signature was forged, and by failing to provide information to the union so that it could investigate the incidents. The employer was found not to have met its burden of proof despite the grievant’s prior discipline. 398 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 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 an LPN who had been assaulted by a patient at the Pauline Lewis Center and she had to be off work due to her injuries for approximately 1 month. When she returned she was assigned to the same work area. She informed her supervisor that she could not work in the same work area, and was told to go home if she could not work. The grievant offered to switch with another employee whom she identified, but the supervisor refused. She then told her supervisor she was going home but instead switched work assignments. The grievant had prior discipline including two 6 day suspensions for neglect of duty. The supervisor concluded that the grievant was given a direct order to work in her original work area. The grievant erroneously believed that switching assignments was permitted. Despite the grievant’s motivation for her action, the grievant’s prior discipline warranted removal, thus the grievance was denied. 424 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 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 faced a series of charges following her reinstatement from a previous removal. A predisciplinary meeting resulted in the hearing officer substantiating all charges, except a charge that the grievant refused to let a patient into the building. The hearing officer recommended removal as a progressive discipline. The arbitrator found the grievant guilty of a number of the charges, and that there was just cause for removal. However, the arbitrator noted that the State was eager to either change the grievant’s behavior or, failing that, get rid of her. Management must accept partial responsibility for the grievant’s troubles on the job. While the arbitrator found no just cause for removal, the
grievant’s removal was upheld, an award of back pay and benefits was given from the date of her discharge to the date of award. The date of her award would also be noted as the grievant’s termination date. 701 The Grievant admitted that he failed to make all of the required 30-minute hallway checks and a 2:00 a.m. headcount and then made entries in the unit log indicating he had done so. The Arbitrator held that just cause existed for discipline. Since the Grievant committed a serious offense less than two years after being suspended for six days for the same offense, the Arbitrator held that the principles of progressive discipline had been followed. In addition, the Arbitrator held that long service cannot excuse serious and repeated misconduct. It could be argued that an employee with long service should have understood the importance of the hallway checks and headcount more than a less senior employee. The Union argued that since the Grievant was not put on administrative leave, it suggested that his offense was not regarded as serious. The employer, however, reserved the use of administrative leave for cases where an employee is accused of abuse. The Union also argued that the time it took to discipline the Grievant should mitigate against his termination. The Arbitrator held that the investigation and pre-disciplinary hearing contributed to the delay and the state made its final decision regarding the Grievant’s discipline within the 45 days allowed. 978 The Arbitrator held that the Employer had just cause to remove the Grievant for falsification. When an employee is found to have falsified a series of request forms to receive compensation for which he is not entitled, this misconduct is equivalent to “theft.” The Grievant used education leave for periods of time when no classes were scheduled and falsified a request for sick leave on a date he was not sick. The Arbitrator found no notice defects. The Grievant’s credibility was hurt based on the differing justifications for his misconduct. 982 Verbal exchanges between two corrections officers resulted in a physical struggle between the two officers. The Arbitrator held that the Agency failed to prove that the Grievant violated either Rule No. 19 or Rule No. 37. The Arbitrator held that more likely than not, the other officer was the aggressor in the events leading up to the struggle. The Grievant acted in self defense and believed that any reasonable person would have acted similiarly. Rule 19 was not intended to deprive the Grievant or other corrections officers of the right to defend themselves against a physical attack from a fellow staff member. The Arbitrator held that it strained credibility to argue that the purpose or spirit of Rule No. 37 was to deprive correctional officers of the right to protect themselves against attacks from coworkers. The Grievant’s behavior was the kind of misconduct that undermines the Grievant’s position as a role model for the inmates. However, the altercation took place where only a handful of inmates were present. The Grievant’s fault or misconduct in this dispute was her voluntary participation in verbal exchanges with the other corrections officer that led to a physical struggle between the Grievant and that Officer. That misconduct warranted some measure of discipline. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant was not removed for just cause. The Agency should not terminate a fourteen-year employee for selfdefense conduct or for engaging in juvenile verbal exchanges with a coworker, even though the behavior is clearly unacceptable. Some measure of discipline is clearly warranted to notify the Grievant and the other corrections officer that verbal barbs have no place in the Agency and will not be tolerated. A three-month suspension without pay should sufficiently deter the Grievant and others from embracing such conduct. The agency was ordered to reinstate the Grievant. 987 The Arbitrator held that, management demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the Grievant violated General Work Rules 4.12, 5.1, and 5.12, and therefore, some measure of discipline was indicated. Mitigating factors were the Grievant’s three years of tenure, satisfactory performance record, and no active discipline. In addition, the Agency established only one of the three major charges that it leveled against the Grievant. Also, nothing in the record suggested that the Grievant held ill will against the Youth. The Arbitrator held that removal was unreasonable, but only barely so, in light of the Grievant’s poor judgment and his less than credible performance on the witness stand. The primary reason for his reinstatement is that the Grievant never intended to harm the Youth. The Grievant was reinstated under very strict conditions: he was entitled to no back pay or other benefits during the period
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 and 162: considered the grievant’s guilty
Page 163 and 164: 24.05. The Arbitrator agreed with t
Page 165 and 166: The grievant was reinstated to her
Page 167: consider that the co-worker may hav
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?