by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

computer terminal off at the end of the day, and various items relating to proper completion of work assignments. However, the employer failed to send a Step 3 response to the Union. The arbitrator found that the employer did violate section 24.02 but there was no harm to the grievant. The employer proved that the grievant was guilty of the acts alleged and that there was no supervisory harassment. Progressive discipline was followed (a 10 day suspension following a 1 day suspension) but the procedural violation warranted a reduction to a seven day suspension. 386 The grievant had held several less than permanent positions with the state since March 1989. In December 1990 the grievant bid on and received a Delivery Worker position from which he was removed as a probationary employee after 117 days. The grievant grieved the probationary removal, arguing that his previous less than permanent service should have counted towards the probationary period. The arbitrator found the grievance not arbitrable because it was untimely. The triggering event was found to have been the end of the shortened probationary period, not the removal. The union or the grievant were held obligated to discover when an employee’s probationary period may be abbreviated due to prior service. The employer was found to have no duty to notify a probationary employee of the grievant’s eligibility for a shortened probationary period when it is disputed. There was no intentional misrepresentation made by the employer, thus the employee waived his right to grieve the end of his probationary period and the employer was not estopped from removing the grievant. The grievance was not arbitrable. 411 The grievant was conducting union business at the Warrensville Developmental Center when a client pushed her and injured her back. Her Occupational Injury Leave was denied because she was conducting union business. A settlement was reached concerning a grievance filed over the employer’s refusal to pay, in which the employer agreed to withdraw its objection to her OIL application based on the fact that she was performing union business. Her application was then denied because her injury was an aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The arbitrator found the grievance arbitrable because the settlement was mistakenly entered into. The grievant believed that her OIL would be approved while the employer believed that it was merely removing one basis for denial. The arbitrator interpreted Appendix K to vest discretion in DAS to make OIL application decisions. The employees’ attending physician, however, was found to have authority to release employees back to work. Additionally, Appendix K was found not to limit OIL to new injuries only. The grievant’s OIL claim was ordered to be paid. 420 The grievant was removed for unauthorized possession of state property when marking tape worth $96.00 was found in his trunk. The Columbus police discovered the tape, notified the employer and found that the tape was missing from storage. The arbitrator found that the late Step 3 response was insufficient to warrant a reduced penalty. The arbitrator also rejected the argument that the grievant obtained the argument that the grievant obtained the property by “trash picking” with permission, and stated that the grievant was required to obtain consent to possess state property. It was also found that while the employer’s rules did not specifically address “trash picking” the grievant was on notice of the rule concerning possession of state property. The grievance was denied. 432 The grievant was a custodian for the Ohio School for the Blind who was removed for the theft of a track suit. The arbitrator looked to the Hurst decision for the standards applicable to cases of theft. It was found that while the grievant did carry the item out of the facility, no intent to steal was proven; removal of state property was proven, not theft. The arbitrator found no procedural error in that the same person recommended discipline and acted as the Step 3 designee. Because the employer failed to meet its burden of proof, the removal was reduced to a 30 day suspension with the arbitrator retaining jurisdiction to resolve differences over back pay and benefits. 439 At a minimum, the Union had to show that the grievance was put in an envelope, properly addressed, properly stamped, and properly placed in a U.S. mail box. Insufficient proof existed that any grievance with regard to the grievant had ever been filed, and therefore, the grievance failed meet the contractual standards under 25.02. 490 (1992-94 contract) The grievant was put on notice of his employment status on or about April 27, 1994, and he did not file a grievance until September
26, 1994. The language of Contract Article 25 clearly outlines the fixed time limits associated with filing a grievance. The detrimental reliance argument of the grievant was not sufficiently supported by the record to constitute an "unusual circumstance" and is insufficient to overcome the clear language of the pertinent Contract Article. The grievance, therefore, was not filed in a timely manner and was therefore not arbitrable. 584 (1994-97 contract) Article 25.02 requires that a legible copy of the grievance form must be filed when appealing to Step 4 of the grievance procedure. Since Article 25.02 was not satisfied, the grievance was not arbitrable. 597 (1994-97 contract) The Arbitrator concluded that the State had agreed to combine grievance numbers 251 and 302. Because the grievances involved many of the same facts, it was logical to combine them. 628 The Arbitrator found that the CBA was not applied in this matter, and he noted that in the language in Article 25.02, Grievance Steps, the words “occurrence” and “events” meant that something must have happened to trigger the grievance. The Arbitrator further found that a contractually mandated event had not transpired in this case because the grievant was not denied his benefits. He concluded that an easy solution to the controversy was to ask the Factfinder. He stated that “when an employee is denied benefits due to the interpretation of the State on the manner in which balances are to be computed, the controversy will be ripe for a grievance and possible arbitration.” 709 25.02 - Grievance Steps The grievant was charged with sexual harassment of a co-worker. The record indicated that no action taken during investigation was sufficient to modify or vacate the suspension, however some of the statements the investigator collected could not be relied upon because they were hearsay or rebutted by the witness. The arbitrator noted that the matter came down to the testimony of one person against another and there was no substantial evidence to sustain the charge. The arbitrator determined that the matter was properly before her because it was appealed within ninety days of the Step 3 response. The arbitrator noted that the fact that it was appealed before the mediation meeting did not invalidate the appeal. 807 The Ohio State Highway Patrol began a criminal investigation in August 2001 of the activities of the grievant, including those while the grievant was on duty as an employee of the Department. The grievant was subsequently discharged on December 12, 2001. The union filed a grievance challenging the discharge. The union requested the arbitration proceed under Section 25.02 of the contract with the state of Ohio. Delays have resulted based on the belief of criminal charges were going to be filed against the grievant. No charges were filed, yet the Department refused to schedule the arbitration. Under Section 25.02, a strict timeline is set out for the processing of Discharge Grievances unless the grievance involves criminal charges of on duty actions of the employee, grievants who are unable to attend due to a disability, or grievances that involve an unfair labor practice charge, in which the strict time limits may be exceeded. The Department was found to have the burden of proof showing that the exception to the strict timeline of scheduling the discharge grievance is present on the facts. The Department argued that the criminal investigation was included as a criminal charge within the language of Section 25.02. The arbitrator found that the criminal investigation did not fall within the criminal charges exception. The arbitrator cited Section 24.04 in which criminal investigation and criminal charges were plainly distinguished. The arbitrator also stated that criminal investigation did not meet the definition of criminal charge as given by the Department. The plain language of the contract makes the criminal investigation outside of the criminal charges exception and therefore, the normal timeline should be followed under Section 25.02. 816 The grievant was terminated as a Correction Officer at the Lima Correctional Institution. Under Article 25.02 of the Contract, a grievance involving a layoff or discipline shall be initiated at Step three (3) of the grievance procedure within fourteen days of notification of such action. The grievance was filed twenty-four days after the Union was notified of the removal. The arbitrator found that the Contract language was clear and that discharge grievances must be filed with the Agency Head or designee within fourteen days of notification. While OCB had a new address and there were new players for both the Union and institution involved with this grievance, these factors do not make the enforcement of the fourteen-day time limit
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 and 184: prohibited from using the grievance
Page 185: employee in her right to bring a gr
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?