by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

equalized with the other employees. The
arbitrator found that she was restricted to
considering only those overtime opportunities
which occurred within ten days prior to the filing
of the grievance. Without the initiation of formal
grievances during the period complained of, the
recovery of lost overtime cannot be permitted,
especially in view of the fact that the agreement
to purge the overtime rosters was a joint
decision. 365
ODOT posted a vacant Equipment Operator 2
position. The grievant and others bid on the
vacancy, however two applicants also had filed
job audits which were awarded prior to the
filling of the vacancy. The vacancy was
cancelled because of the job audits. The
arbitrator found the union’s prepositioning
argument arbitrable because the grievant would
otherwise have no standing to grieve. Managerial
intent to pre-position was found to be possible
even if committed by a lead worker. The
arbitrator also found that job audits are a second
avenue to promotions and not subordinate to
Article 17 promotions. The grievances was, thus,
denied. 367
The grievant injured his back in car accident and
was off work for six months while receiving
disability benefits. His doctor released him to
work if no lifting was allowed. Because the
position required lifting, he either left or was
asked to leave work. He failed to call in for three
consecutive days and was removed for job
abandonment. The union requested arbitration
more than 30 days after the date on the Step 3
response. No evidence was offered on the
interpretation of 25.02, and as to when the union
received the Step 3 response. The employer
failed to overcome the presumption that a
grievance is arbitrable. The arbitrator found just
cause because: the grievant has served a 5 day
suspension for failing to follow call-in procedure
while on disability, his doctor’s statement that he
should avoid lifting was ambiguous, and he
failed to respond to the employer’s attempts to
contact him. Filing for Workers’ Compensation
was not found to substitute for contact with the
employer. 373
The grievant had been on a disability separation
and had been refused when he requested
reinstatement. The arbitrator found the grievance
arbitrable because section 43.02 incorporated
Ohio Administrative Code section 123:1-33.03
as it conferred a benefit upon state employees
not found within the contract. The grievant thus
had three years from his separation to request
reinstatement, which he did. The grievance was
also found to be timely filed because there was
no clear point at which the employer finally
denied the grievant’s request for reinstatement
and the union was not notified of the events by
the employer. Additionally, the employer was
estopped from asserting timeliness arguments
because the employer was found to have delayed
processing the grievant’s request for
reinstatement. The physician who performed a
state-ordered examination released the grievant
to work, thus the employer improperly refused
the grievant’s reinstatement request. The
grievant was reinstated with back pay less other
income for the period, holiday pay, leave
balances credited with amounts he had when
separated, restoration of seniority and service
credits, medical expenses which would have
been covered by state insurance, PERS
contributions, and he was to receive orientation
and training upon reinstatement. 375
The grievant began to experience absenteeism
problems and received notification of his
removal on February 8,1991. The Union’s
Executive Director received a copy of the
removal order on February 19. The grievance
was written on February 22nd and received by
the employer on March 1, twenty days after the
removal order. The grievance was held to not be
timely filed and thus not arbitrable. The
triggering event was the grievant’s receipt of his
removal order. Section 25.01 employs calendar
days, not work days. Also, while the day of
receipt of the removal order is not counted, the
day the grievance is postmarked is counted. No
basis for an extension of time was proven. 387
The grievant retired from the State Highway
Patrol and was hired by the Department of
Health four days later. His new employer
determined that the Ohio Revised Code section
124.181 did not provide for longevity pay
supplements based on prior state service for
rehired retirees. The arbitrator found the
grievance arbitrable despite the employer’s
argument that because of the grievant’s retiree
status that longevity was a retirement benefit,
and under Ohio Revised Code section
4117.10(A) longevity for a retired employee was
not a bargainable subject. Section 124.181 was
found to be applicable and section 36.07 of the
contract confers longevity pay based solely on
length of service. That the grievant experienced a
change in classification was found to be