by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
The use of “may” in 25.02 is only another<br />
contractual recognition that the grievance is the<br />
property of the union and that the union is not<br />
required to appeal every grievance to step 5. 158<br />
Section 25.02 indicates that an unsettled<br />
grievance may be appealed to arbitration <strong>by</strong> the<br />
union as long as written notice is given to the<br />
Director of the Office of Collective Bargaining<br />
within (30) days of the answer, or the due date of<br />
the answer if no answer is given, in step 4. 164<br />
The grievant was an employee of the<br />
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.<br />
The Grievant worked next to employees of the<br />
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services and often<br />
voluntarily helped out with work done <strong>by</strong> OBES<br />
employees. The grievant received a letter from<br />
the Chairman of the Board informing her that she<br />
would be laid-off from her position. The grievant<br />
filed a grievance with OBES against the UC<br />
Board of Review in Akron protesting her layoff.<br />
Documents such as the grievant’s employee<br />
identification card, check stub, record of<br />
appointment, position description, the OBES<br />
telephone directory and others indicate that the<br />
Board is a division of OBES. Additionally,<br />
grievant indicated that she assisted on work done<br />
<strong>by</strong> OBES employees. Nonetheless, the Arbitrator<br />
declined to decide the meaning of "Agency<br />
Head” in Section 25.02 of the Agreement.<br />
Instead, the arbitrator relied on the abovementioned<br />
circumstances in ruling that the<br />
Grievant and Union proceeded in compliance<br />
with Section 25.02 of the Agreement. 172<br />
The grievant was an employee of the<br />
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.<br />
The Grievant worked next to employees of the<br />
Ohio Bureau of Employment Services and often<br />
voluntarily helped out with work done <strong>by</strong> OBES<br />
employees. The grievant received a letter from<br />
the Chairman of the Board informing her that she<br />
would be laid-off from her position. The<br />
Arbitrator found that the Step Four request was<br />
timely filed. The Union produced an Inter-<br />
Office-Communication containing the Step Four<br />
request dated within the time limit. Moreover, a<br />
letter from the Union's Director of Arbitration to<br />
the Office of Collective Bargaining, stated that<br />
the date stamp reflects OCB's receipt of<br />
duplicates that it requested and received from the<br />
Union. This letter did not show that the<br />
documents were duplicates rather than originals,<br />
but it does note that the Step 3 Grievance Form<br />
also contained a date stamp. The evidence leads<br />
one to believe that the grievance packet<br />
contained duplicates of earlier documents that<br />
were timely filed <strong>by</strong> the Union. Furthermore, the<br />
Board did not complain that the Step 5 notice,<br />
which was appropriate only after the Step 4<br />
procedure has been exhausted, was untimely<br />
filed. 172<br />
Where the State argued that the grievance was<br />
not arbitrable because it was sent to the wrong<br />
“agency head” in violation of 25.02, the<br />
arbitrator ruled that the grievance was arbitrable<br />
because the grievant and the union reasonably<br />
believed that they had complied with section<br />
25.02 and the proper agency actually received<br />
the grievance within the time limits of 25.02.<br />
172<br />
Arbitrator Rivera’s appropriate observation<br />
concerning the concept of notice finds strong<br />
Support in an Arbitral (and legal) consensus on<br />
the point. Actual receipt of “written notice” is<br />
not required; proof of mailing will suffice to<br />
establish the presumption that the written notice<br />
was received, notwithstanding the inability of the<br />
recipient to produce it. 187<br />
Article 25, Section 25.01 (B) specifically<br />
contemplates the possibility of a class action<br />
grievance and one grievant representing a group.<br />
The language of the grievance itself clearly<br />
indicated an intent for it to be handled as a group<br />
grievance. While the grievance is signed <strong>by</strong> one<br />
grievant in this case, <strong>by</strong> its specific terms it is<br />
filed on behalf of all members that are affected.<br />
On its face, it is clearly brought on behalf of the<br />
group and cannot be seen as referring to an<br />
individual grievant. 297<br />
The grievant had a thirty day time limit on filing<br />
her grievance starting from the date the grievant<br />
became or reasonably should have become aware<br />
of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance.<br />
The event giving rise to the grievance occurred<br />
when the grievant continued to be carried as a<br />
probationary employee after sixty days of<br />
employment. The grievant had thirty days form<br />
the date when she was wrongfully listed as a<br />
probationary employee. The Union’s argument<br />
that the grievant was not harmed until she was<br />
later removed was dismissed. The arbitrator<br />
found that as soon as the grievant was kept on<br />
probationary status and did not receive the full<br />
protection and rights of seniority status. The<br />
employer is also not liable for the training of the