by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
irrelevant for the purpose of calculating longevity and the grievance was sustained. 389 The federal government created, established hiring criteria, and funded job training positions within the Ooo Bureau of Employment Services for Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Specialists (DVOPS), and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVERS). The OBES and Department of Labor negotiated changes in the locations of these employees which resulted in layoffs which were not done pursuant to Article 18. Title 38 of the United States Code was found to conflict with contract Article 18. There is no federal statute analogous to Ohio Revised code section 4117 which allows conflicting contract sections to supersede the law, thus federal law was found to supersede the contract. As the arbitrator’s authority extends only to the contract and state law incorporated into it, the DVOPS’ and LVERS’ claim was held not arbitrable. Other resulting layoffs were found to be controlled by the contract and Ohio Revised Code sections incorporated into the contract (see, Broadview layoff arbitration #340). The grievance was sustained in part. The nonfederally created positions had not been properly abolished and the affected employees were awarded lost wages for the period of their improper abolishments. 390 During the processing of several grievances concerning minimum qualifications, #393-397, a core issue regarding the union’s right to grieve the employer’s established minimum qualifications was identified. The arbitrator interpreted section 36.05 of the contract as permitting the union to grieve the establishment of minimum qualifications. He explained that the minimum qualification must be reasonably related to the position, and that the employer cannot set standards which bear no demonstrable relationship to the position. 392 The grievant applied for a posted Tax Commissioner Agent 2 position but was denied the promotion. She was told that she failed to meet the minimum qualifications, specifically 9 months experience preparing 10 column accounting work papers. The grievant was found to have experience in 12 column accounting work papers which were found to encompass 10 column papers. Additionally, the employer was found to have used Worker Characteristics, which are to be developed after employment, in the selection process. The grievant was found to possess the minimum qualifications and was awarded the position as well as any lost wage. 393 (see 392) The grievant applied for a posted Word Processing Specialist 2 position and was denied the promotion. The employer claimed that she did not meet the minimum qualifications because she had not completed 2 courses in word processing. The grievant was found not to possess the minimum qualifications at the time she submitted her application. The fact that she was taking her second word processing class cannot count toward her application; she must have completed it at the time of her application. Additionally, business data processing course work cannot substitute for word processing as the position is a word processing position. 394** (see 392**) The grievant applied for a posted Programmer Analyst 2 position and was denied the promotion. The employer claimed that she did not possess the required algebra course work or the equivalent. The arbitrator found that because the grievant completed a FORTRAN computer programming course, she did possess the required knowledge of algebra. The minimum qualifications allow alternate ways of being met, either through course work, work experience, or training. The grievance was sustained and the grievant was awarded the position along with lost wages. 395 (see 392) The grievant applied for a posted Microbiologist 3 position in the AIDS section position and was denied the promotion because she failed to meet the minimum qualifications. The successful applicant was a junior employee who was alleged to have met the minimum qualifications. The arbitrator found that the junior applicant should not have been considered because the application had not been notarized, and it was thus incomplete at the time of its submission. The employer also found that the employer used worker characteristics which are to be developed after employment (marked with an asterisk) to determine minimum qualifications for applicants. Lastly, neither the successful applicant nor the grievant possessed the minimum qualification, however the employer was found to have held this against only the grievant. The arbitrator stated that the employer must treat all applicants equally. The grievant was awarded the position along with any lost wages. 396 (see 392)
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 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: the possible violation was not brou
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?