by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The grievant applied for a posted Microbiologist 3 position in the Rabies section and was denied the promotion because the employer found that she failed to possess the minimum qualifications. Neither the successful applicant nor the grievant possessed the minimum qualifications for the position but this fact was held only against the grievant. The arbitrator stated that the employer must treat all applicants equally. The arbitrator found that the grievant did possess the minimum qualifications and that the required rabies immunization and other abilities could be acquired after being awarded the position. The grievant was awarded the position along with any lost wages. 397 (see 392) The grievant had held several less than permanent positions with the state since March 1989. In December 1990 the grievant bid on and received a Delivery Worker position from which he was removed as a probationary employee after 117 days. The grievant grieved the probationary removal, arguing that his previous less then permanent service should have counted towards the probationary period. The arbitrator found the grievance not arbitrable because it was untimely. The triggering event was found to have been the end of the shortened probationary period, not the removal. The union or the grievant were held obligated to discover when an employee’s probationary period may be abbreviated due to prior service. The employer was found to have no duty to notify a probationary employee of the grievant’s eligibility for a shortened probationary period when it is disputed. There was no intentional misrepresentation made by the employer, thus the employee waived his right to grieve the end of his probationary period and the employer was not estopped from removing the grievant. The grievance was not arbitrable 411 The grievant was a custodial worker at a psychiatric hospital. The grievant asked a patient to smoke outside rather then inside a cottage. The patient told the grievant that he would not, dropped to his knees and repeated his statement, as was the patient’s habit. The patient repeated this action later in the day and grabbed the grievant’s leg. The grievant yanked his leg free, the client accused the grievant of kicking him and criminal charges were brought. The criminal charges were dropped pursuant to a settlement with the Cuyahoga County court in which the grievant agreed not to contest his removal. When the grievance was pursued, the employer asked for criminal charges to be reinstated. The charges could not be reinstated, but the grievant agreed not to sue the employer. The grievance was held to be arbitrable despite the settlement between the grievant and the county court. Had the settlement been a three party agreement including the employer, dovetailing into the grievance process, it would have precluded arbitration. Additionally, after filing a grievance it becomes the property of the union. The grievance was sustained because the employer failed to meet its burden of proof that the grievant abused a patient. The arbitrator awarded full back pay less interim earnings, back seniority, back benefits, and that the incident be expunged from the grievant’s record. 416 The grievant was conducting union business at the Warrensville Developmental Center when a client pushed her and injured her back. Her Occupational Injury Leave was denied because she was conducting union business. A settlement was reached concerning a grievance filed over the employer’s refusal to pay, in which the employer agreed to withdraw its objection to her OIL application based on the fact that she was performing union business. Her application was then denied because her injury was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The arbitrator found the grievance arbitrable because the settlement was mistakenly entered into. The grievant believed that her OIL would be approved while the employer believed that it was merely removing one basis for denial. The arbitrator interpreted Appendix K to vest discretion in DAS to make OIL application decisions. The employees’ attending physician, however, was found to have authority to release employees back to work. Additionally, Appendix K was found not to limit OIL to new injuries only. The grievant’s OIL claim was ordered to be paid. 420 The department of Natural Resources posted a vacancy and accepted applications through June 28, 1989. The applications were evaluated through August, and a selection was made in September 1989. The grievant would have no grievance rights if the 1986 agreement controlled the entire process, but would if the 1989 agreement controlled due to his section 17.05 (1989 agreement) applicant group status. The arbitrator found that critical elements of the selection process were performed under the 1989 agreement, thus it controlled the matter and the
grievance was held arbitrable, (the right to grieve arose under the 1989 agreement upon notification of non-selection). The employer was ordered to select from applicants grouped pursuant to the 1989 agreement. 423 The Union contended that the employer waived its rights to argue arbitrability by accepting and processing a grievance that was untimely filed. However, the Arbitrator concluded that the Union's waiver argument was not valid because the Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections clearly raised its procedural objection at the third step meeting. Thereafter, the Department discussed the case on its merits and that does not constitute a waiver. 582 (1994-97 contract) The Union contended that the employer waived its rights to argue arbitrability by accepting and processing the grievance. The Arbitrator held that since the contract unambiguously states the time limits for filing discharge grievances, the grievant was properly removed. 583 (1994-97 contract) The Arbitrator dismissed the Employer's claim that the grievant lacked standing, finding that Section 25.01 of the Agreement provides that a grievance is simply a dispute between the Employer and the Union or any employee regarding the application, meaning, or interpretation of the Agreement. 632 (1997-2000 contract) Article 25.01A, was defined as “any difference, complaint or dispute between the Employer and the Union or any employee regarding the application, meaning or interpretation” of the CBA. The Arbitrator found that the CBA was not applied in this matter, and he noted that in the language in Article 25.02, Grievance Steps, the words “occurrence” and “events” meant that something must have happened to trigger the grievance. The Arbitrator further found that a contractually mandated event had not transpired in this case because the grievant was not denied his benefits. He concluded that an easy solution to the controversy was to ask the Factfinder. He stated that “when an employee is denied benefits due to the interpretation of the State on the manner in which balances are to be computed the controversy will be ripe for a grievance and possible arbitration.” 709 The arbitrator found that the grievance was not filed properly – it was not filed on the proper form nor filed within 14 days of notification pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The arbitrator stated that if the grievance had been properly filed, it would have been denied on its merits. The grievant was charged with using derogatory and obscene language towards a security guard. Two witnesses, both of who were Ohio State Patrol Troopers, corroborated the guard’s testimony. Though the incident did not occur when the grievant was on duty, it did occur in the public area of the State building where the grievant’s office was located and where State employees, as well as the public were present. The employer did not consider the grievant’s 22 years of service and the arbitrator noted that there was no obligation to do so because the grievant had signed a Last Chance Agreement from a previous disciplinary action which had been negotiated and agreed to by both parties. 805 The grievant was given a 10-day suspension for various alleged violations including Neglect of Duty, Insubordination, Exercising Poor Judgment; Failure of Good Behavior and Working Excess Hours Without Authorization. The Union argued that the same person conducted the third step proceeding, the predisciplinary meeting, another third step meeting and also prepared the notice of the predisciplinary meeting notice. In essence, the grievant’s “Accuser, Judge and Employer Representative.” The arbitrator determined that there was no conflict and that the contract does not require that different individuals preside over the various steps in the process. He noted that the pre-disciplinary meeting was not an adjudicatory hearing, stating that it is described in Article 24.04 as a meeting. The arbitrator found that five examination reports were not submitted by the grievant. The supervisor was “extraordinarily patient with the grievant” and gave him several reminders to submit the examination reports. The grievant clearly understood he was to submit the reports. The grievant’s failure to submit the reports was a failure to perform a fundamental part of his job. The Employer failed to make its case with regards to the grievant’s time sheets. The employer did not show just cause to discipline the grievant for working excess hours without authorization. Though the time sheet was not clear, it was obvious that the grievant was not claiming hours beyond his scheduled hours. The arbitrator determined that there was no just cause for Working in Excess Poor Judgment, Failure of
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 and 178: the possible violation was not brou
Page 179: irrelevant for the purpose of calcu
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?