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.
computer terminal off at the end of the day, and<br />
various items relating to proper completion of<br />
work assignments. However, the employer<br />
failed to send a Step 3 response to the Union.<br />
The arbitrator found that the employer did<br />
violate section 24.02 but there was no harm to<br />
the grievant. The employer proved that the<br />
grievant was guilty of the acts alleged and that<br />
there was no supervisory harassment.<br />
Progressive discipline was followed (a 10 day<br />
suspension following a 1 day suspension) but the<br />
procedural violation warranted a reduction to a<br />
seven day suspension. 386<br />
The grievant had held several less than<br />
permanent positions with the state since March<br />
1989. In December 1990 the grievant bid on and<br />
received a Delivery Worker position from which<br />
he was removed as a probationary employee<br />
after 117 days. The grievant grieved the<br />
probationary removal, arguing that his previous<br />
less than permanent service should have counted<br />
towards the probationary period. The arbitrator<br />
found the grievance not arbitrable because it was<br />
untimely. The triggering event was found to have<br />
been the end of the shortened probationary<br />
period, not the removal. The union or the<br />
grievant were held obligated to discover when an<br />
employee’s probationary period may be<br />
abbreviated due to prior service. The employer<br />
was found to have no duty to notify a<br />
probationary employee of the grievant’s<br />
eligibility for a shortened probationary period<br />
when it is disputed. There was no intentional<br />
misrepresentation made <strong>by</strong> the employer, thus<br />
the employee waived his right to grieve the end<br />
of his probationary period and the employer was<br />
not estopped from removing the grievant. The<br />
grievance was not arbitrable. 411<br />
The grievant was conducting union business at<br />
the Warrensville Developmental Center when a<br />
client pushed her and injured her back. Her<br />
Occupational Injury Leave was denied because<br />
she was conducting union business. A settlement<br />
was reached concerning a grievance filed over<br />
the employer’s refusal to pay, in which the<br />
employer agreed to withdraw its objection to her<br />
OIL application based on the fact that she was<br />
performing union business. Her application was<br />
then denied because her injury was an<br />
aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The<br />
arbitrator found the grievance arbitrable because<br />
the settlement was mistakenly entered into. The<br />
grievant believed that her OIL would be<br />
approved while the employer believed that it was<br />
merely removing one basis for denial. The<br />
arbitrator interpreted Appendix K to vest<br />
discretion in DAS to make OIL application<br />
decisions. The employees’ attending physician,<br />
however, was found to have authority to release<br />
employees back to work. Additionally, Appendix<br />
K was found not to limit OIL to new injuries<br />
only. The grievant’s OIL claim was ordered to be<br />
paid. 420<br />
The grievant was removed for unauthorized<br />
possession of state property when marking tape<br />
worth $96.00 was found in his trunk. The<br />
Columbus police discovered the tape, notified<br />
the employer and found that the tape was<br />
missing from storage. The arbitrator found that<br />
the late Step 3 response was insufficient to<br />
warrant a reduced penalty. The arbitrator also<br />
rejected the argument that the grievant obtained<br />
the argument that the grievant obtained the<br />
property <strong>by</strong> “trash picking” with permission, and<br />
stated that the grievant was required to obtain<br />
consent to possess state property. It was also<br />
found that while the employer’s rules did not<br />
specifically address “trash picking” the grievant<br />
was on notice of the rule concerning possession<br />
of state property. The grievance was denied. 432<br />
The grievant was a custodian for the Ohio<br />
School for the Blind who was removed for the<br />
theft of a track suit. The arbitrator looked to the<br />
Hurst decision for the standards applicable to<br />
cases of theft. It was found that while the<br />
grievant did carry the item out of the facility, no<br />
intent to steal was proven; removal of state<br />
property was proven, not theft. The arbitrator<br />
found no procedural error in that the same person<br />
recommended discipline and acted as the Step 3<br />
designee. Because the employer failed to meet its<br />
burden of proof, the removal was reduced to a 30<br />
day suspension with the arbitrator retaining<br />
jurisdiction to resolve differences over back pay<br />
and benefits. 439<br />
At a minimum, the Union had to show that the<br />
grievance was put in an envelope, properly<br />
addressed, properly stamped, and properly<br />
placed in a U.S. mail box. Insufficient proof<br />
existed that any grievance with regard to the<br />
grievant had ever been filed, and therefore, the<br />
grievance failed meet the contractual standards<br />
under 25.02. 490 (1992-94 contract)<br />
The grievant was put on notice of his<br />
employment status on or about April 27, 1994,<br />
and he did not file a grievance until September