by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The use of “may” in 25.02 is only another contractual recognition that the grievance is the property of the union and that the union is not required to appeal every grievance to step 5. 158 Section 25.02 indicates that an unsettled grievance may be appealed to arbitration by the union as long as written notice is given to the Director of the Office of Collective Bargaining within (30) days of the answer, or the due date of the answer if no answer is given, in step 4. 164 The grievant was an employee of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. The Grievant worked next to employees of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services and often voluntarily helped out with work done by OBES employees. The grievant received a letter from the Chairman of the Board informing her that she would be laid-off from her position. The grievant filed a grievance with OBES against the UC Board of Review in Akron protesting her layoff. Documents such as the grievant’s employee identification card, check stub, record of appointment, position description, the OBES telephone directory and others indicate that the Board is a division of OBES. Additionally, grievant indicated that she assisted on work done by OBES employees. Nonetheless, the Arbitrator declined to decide the meaning of "Agency Head” in Section 25.02 of the Agreement. Instead, the arbitrator relied on the abovementioned circumstances in ruling that the Grievant and Union proceeded in compliance with Section 25.02 of the Agreement. 172 The grievant was an employee of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. The Grievant worked next to employees of the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services and often voluntarily helped out with work done by OBES employees. The grievant received a letter from the Chairman of the Board informing her that she would be laid-off from her position. The Arbitrator found that the Step Four request was timely filed. The Union produced an Inter- Office-Communication containing the Step Four request dated within the time limit. Moreover, a letter from the Union's Director of Arbitration to the Office of Collective Bargaining, stated that the date stamp reflects OCB's receipt of duplicates that it requested and received from the Union. This letter did not show that the documents were duplicates rather than originals, but it does note that the Step 3 Grievance Form also contained a date stamp. The evidence leads one to believe that the grievance packet contained duplicates of earlier documents that were timely filed by the Union. Furthermore, the Board did not complain that the Step 5 notice, which was appropriate only after the Step 4 procedure has been exhausted, was untimely filed. 172 Where the State argued that the grievance was not arbitrable because it was sent to the wrong “agency head” in violation of 25.02, the arbitrator ruled that the grievance was arbitrable because the grievant and the union reasonably believed that they had complied with section 25.02 and the proper agency actually received the grievance within the time limits of 25.02. 172 Arbitrator Rivera’s appropriate observation concerning the concept of notice finds strong Support in an Arbitral (and legal) consensus on the point. Actual receipt of “written notice” is not required; proof of mailing will suffice to establish the presumption that the written notice was received, notwithstanding the inability of the recipient to produce it. 187 Article 25, Section 25.01 (B) specifically contemplates the possibility of a class action grievance and one grievant representing a group. The language of the grievance itself clearly indicated an intent for it to be handled as a group grievance. While the grievance is signed by one grievant in this case, by its specific terms it is filed on behalf of all members that are affected. On its face, it is clearly brought on behalf of the group and cannot be seen as referring to an individual grievant. 297 The grievant had a thirty day time limit on filing her grievance starting from the date the grievant became or reasonably should have become aware of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance. The event giving rise to the grievance occurred when the grievant continued to be carried as a probationary employee after sixty days of employment. The grievant had thirty days form the date when she was wrongfully listed as a probationary employee. The Union’s argument that the grievant was not harmed until she was later removed was dismissed. The arbitrator found that as soon as the grievant was kept on probationary status and did not receive the full protection and rights of seniority status. The employer is also not liable for the training of the
employee in her right to bring a grievance. The employer did not act in bad faith to keep the grievant in the dark as to her rights. The employee also had worked for the State previously and had adequate time to discover the issue of her probationary status and raise it in a timely fashion. The grievance was not arbitrable since it was untimely. 344 For the Union to ask the arbitrator to interpret and apply the Fair Labor Standards Act, when the possible violation was not brought up until the arbitration hearing smacks of unfairness. The carefully drawn class grievance has been in the pipeline for two years and the possible FLSAviolation by the employer should have been brought before the hearing. The arbitrator does not wish to categorically hold that every issue must always be explicitly raised in the initial grievance. Many times grievances are drawn by persons who are untutored in specificity. Holding such persons to highly formalistic rules is unfair; pleading by inference in such cases is just. 345 The timelines of the Agreement are clear and mandatory. A grievance filed at Third Step must be filed within fourteen days of notification. In the event the deadline is missed the grievance is deemed withdrawn. 347 The grievant was a Corrections Officer removed for using vulgar language, conducting union business on work time, and fondling an inmate. The arbitrator rejected the claim that the Union had a right to question witnesses at the predisciplinary hearing. Nor did the employer violate Article 25.08 because the union made excessive document requests. The employer did violate Article 25.02 by not issuing a Step 3 response for six (6) months, however the grievant was not prejudiced. Therefore, the arbitrator found, because the inmate was more credible than the grievant, that just cause did exist for the removal. 366 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 Worker’s Compensation was not found not 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 was upgraded through ClassModernization to a Systems Analyst 2 position. She received an adequate midprobationary rating but received a verbal reprimand for poor performance afterwards. She alleged supervisory harassment and was transferred to another supervisor who also rated her below average in all six categories. Her performance failed to improve and she received further discipline up to and including the ten day suspension which is the subject of this grievance. She was charged with failure to follow a direct order, breach of security for failing to turn her
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 and 180: irrelevant for the purpose of calcu
Page 181 and 182: grievance was held arbitrable, (the
Page 183: prohibited from using the grievance
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?