by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Good Behavior and Exercising Poor Judgment;
however, he found just cause for Insubordination
and Neglect of Duty. e arbitrator found the 10-
day suspension reasonable. The decision by the
employer to suspend the grievant for 10 days in
this case was based in part on an act of
insubordination that occurred approximately one
month prior to the charges in this matter. 854
The grievant was injured at work and qualified
for workers’ compensation. His disability
separation date went back to his injury date and
he was notified that he had three years from that
date to request reinstatement. Three years to the
day following his disability separation, the
grievant notified his employer that he wished to
return to work. He faxed a note from his
physician to the administrator of personnel
stating that he could return to work with no
restrictions. Ten days following grievant’s
notification, the administrator notified the
grievant that his request must be in writing. The
employer removed the grievant from his position
on the grounds that the request for reinstatement
was not timely. The arbitrator found that the
employer’s request ten days beyond the deadline
constituted a “waiver by implication” of the
employer’s right to require a written request
under OAC 123:1-33-04. “Since the facility
impliedly represented it would not stand on its
right to a timely request for reinstatement, and
since that representation induced action on
behalf of the grievant, the facility is estopped
from now asserting its right to a timely written
request for reinstatement.” The arbitrator
concluded that the employer failed to comply
with OAC 123:1-33-04. The arbitrator
determined that the issue in this matter was a
grievance under Article 25.01(A) between the
Union and the employer. Since it had not been
settled by the grievance process it was arbitrable
under Article 25.02 and because under ORC
4117.10(A) if an agreement allows for a binding
and final arbitration of grievances, the arbitrator
did not have the authority to accept the decision
of the Board of Review which ruled in favor of
the employer. 859
The grievant was removed from his CO position
in May 2003. The grievant filed a grievance.
The grievant was reinstated as a result of a
Settlement Agreement. While this grievance was
pending, the Grievant filed an unemployment
claim, and a determination was issued that the
removal was not for just cause. The Employer
appealed this decision. Another hearing was
conducted, and when the hearing officer inquired
as to the status of the grievant’s discharge
grievance, the Employer submitted the
Settlement Agreement. The hearing officer
reversed the redetermination, finding the
grievant was on a disciplinary layoff for
misconduct in connection with his work. No
appeal was filed to request a review, so ODJFS
sought repayment from the grievant. It was not
until after the deadline had past for appeal and
ODJFS sought repayment, that the grievant
appealed the determination of overpayment of
benefits. A hearing was held regarding the order
of repayment, where a discussion ensued
regarding whether the grievant had appealed the
determination that he was ineligible for benefits,
since a final determination of ineligibility was
necessary or a determination of amounts
overpaid. The grievant’s attorney requested a
copy of the redetermination decision. This was
followed by a fax of the grievant’s appeal of the
redetermination, which was undated. The appeal
disputed that the grievant was on disciplinary
lay-off while receiving benefits, asserted that his
Employer’s references to the Settlement
Agreement were improper, and asked that the
determination that he received overpayment of
unemployment benefits be overturned. The
grievance was denied. 919
The Grievant had accepted an inter-agency
transfer, demotion, and headquarter county
change. The Department sent her a letter that
erroneously stated that she would “serve a
probationary period of 60 days in this position.”
A month later the Department issued a
“Corrected Letter” informing her that she would
serve a probationary period of 120 days,
provided by Article 6.01 D. The Grievant’s
Final Probationary Evaluation rated her
performance as unsatisfactory and she was
probationarily removed. The Arbitrator held that
the Grievant was in an initial probationary period
and not a trial period when she was removed.
The Acknowledgment she signed explicitly
referenced Article 6.01 D, used the term “initial
probationary period”, and placed her on notice
that she could be removed during that period
without recourse. The Grievant neither
consulted the Collective Bargaining Agreement
or Union before signing the Acknowledgment;
nor did she inquire about the change or file a
grievance when she got the corrected letter.
Trial periods differ from probationary periods in
that they are one-half the regular probationary
period and employees in trial periods are not