by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

prohibited from using the grievance procedure to
protest discipline and discharge actions. The
Arbitrator held that regardless of the mistake
made by the Department (but later rectified) she
had no authority to review the Department’s
removal decision. Therefore, the matter of the
Grievant’s removal was not arbitrable. 936
The Grievant orally and by e-mail communicated
to her direct supervisor her intent to end the
employment relationship, which was
accompanied by packing her belongings. The
Grievant was in a state of anxiety and emotional
distress at the time she voiced her intention to
resign and acted upon it. The evidence did not
show that the Grievant was in such a deteriorated
mental condition that she was rendered incapable
of understanding what she was doing, and the
consequence of what she was doing. Her
workplace situation could not be found to be so
intolerable that a resignation would be
compelled. The Arbitrator held that the
resignation was voluntary and not coerced. The
Arbitrator held that the resignation was effective
since the Employer had accepted the resignation
before the Grievant made any efforts to rescind
the resignation. The Arbitrator held that he
Department of Agriculture did not have a legal
duty under Administrative Code 123:1-25-02 to
reinstate the Grievant This provision only creates
a privilege on the part of the appointing authority
to request a reinstatement. The administrative
code provides that the employee “may be
reinstated.” There is no right to be reinstated.
The grievance was denied. 948
The grievance involved the implementation of
terms of an agreement that placed some Attorney
classifications into the bargaining unit as of
March 5, 2006 after they were removed on May
17, 2003. As a result of the Agreement, 247
Attorneys were placed into the bargaining unit.
This Grievance consolidated all individual issues
that arose into one Union grievance. The
Employer did not consider the automatic
probationary advancement for some District
Hearing Officers 1’s and 2’s. Six employees had
adjustments made and were paid back pay
ranging from $158.40-$2319.20. The Employer
did not consider step movement that would have
occurred between July 1, 2005 and March 5,
2006 for 17 attorneys. Back pay was paid
ranging from $9.60 to $2424.40. Employees
who had vacation balances reduced but were not
compensated for said hours were paid for the
removed hours at the rate of pay applicable as of
the date of the removal. The Arbitrator found
that the Agreement did not address the issue of
recalculating yearend cash-in balances for sick
and personal leave; did not address the issue of
employees who may have separated from service
with the State of Ohio during or subsequent to
the implementation of the Agreement; and, the
Agreement did not address the issue of the use of
advance step placement as a remedy to place an
employee at a bargaining unit step that is closer
to the exempt step at which the employee was
hired. 959
The grievance was not dismissed as untimely.
The Arbitrator held that the grievant was
mistaken in her belief about what the grievable
event was. However, only work performed by
others during the ten days preceding her
grievance, which was work normally performed
by the grievant, would be compensable. The
Arbitrator found that the project work of
developing, testing, and implementing changes
to the processes and programs of registration
renewals was clearly outside the domain of the
Grievant’s normal work. Since the Union had
the burden to show by a preponderance of
evidence that the Grievant “normally performed
the work,” and/or the Arbitrator could only make
an educated guess, the grievance must be denied.
977
25.02 - Grievance Steps
The grievance was denied despite the employer’s
failure to comply with step 3 of the grievance
procedure as set out in 25.02 on the grounds
there was not sufficient evidence to conclude that
the union’s or grievant’s rights were prejudiced.
127
Section 25.05 is rather a general provision which
further explains and supplements the specific
time limits imposed on both parties in section
25.02. 158
Section 25.02 expressly and specifically
contemplates those cases where the employer has
rendered an untimely response or no response at
all at each of those three steps. The arbitrator
agrees with the employer that the third paragraph
of 25.05 serves merely to affirm that the union
has a window within which to perfect its appeals
to steps 3, 4, and 5 which can in no way be
adversely affected by any late response of action
of the employer after the due date for the
employer’s response. 158