by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

grievant’s back pay. The grievant was first discharged on 12/15/89. At the conclusion of the initial arbitration hearing on 4/17/90, the arbitrator put the employer on notice that the grievant would be reinstated. The employer requested a delay to effectuate a face saving settlement. When such a settlement was not forthcoming the arbitrator awarded the grievant to be reinstated in a written opinion on 4/30/90. The employer did not reinstate the grievant until 5/20/90 and the grievant did not receive her back pay until 6/1/90. The arbitrator first found that she did have the authority to award interest on a back pay award. The arbitration decided that the interest award was not a type of punitive damages as argued by the employer, but only a part of a make whole remedy. As such, the arbitrator was entitled to decide the issue of interest payments. The arbitrator found that the employer’s delay did not rise to the level of egregious conduct which would allow an award of prejudgment interest. The employer’s delay from 4/30/90 to 6/1/90 (postjudgment) does warrant an award of interest. A postjudgment interest award is clearly part of a make whole remedy. The employer should not benefit from its bureaucratic inefficiency. The arbitrator decided to award an interest rate of the adjusted prime rate in effect on 4/30/90 compounded daily 252(B) Where “just cause” was not present because the grievant was summarily dismissed without any consideration of the grievant’s many years of high quality service or other mitigating circumstances, the grievance was nevertheless denied. By removing arbitral discretion to modify penalties in a case involving patient abuse, the parties either predefined just cause or divorced such misconduct from the protections of just cause. In either case, the removal cannot be modified once abuse has been found. Section 24.01 prohibits an arbitrator from modifying the discharge penalty when patient abuse is the cause. Section 25.03 requires an arbitrator to apply the negotiated provisions of the agreement as they are written and intended to be applied, without additions, subtractions, amendments, or alterations. It is a mandate the Arbitrator must obey; one which allows no room for individual concepts of fairness or justice. 253 The federal government created, established hiring criteria, and funded job training positions within the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services for Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Specialists (DVOPS), and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVERS). The OBES and Department of Labor negotiated changes in the locations of these employees which resulted in layoffs which were not done pursuant to Article 18. Title 38 of the United States Code was found to conflict with contract Article 18. There is no federal statuette analogous to Ohio Revised code section 4117 which allows conflicting contract sections to supersede the law, thus federal law was found to supersede the contract. As the arbitrator’s authority extends only to the contract and state law incorporated into it, the DVOPS’ and LVERS’ claim was held not arbitrable. Other resulting layoffs were found to be controlled by the contract and Ohio Revised Code sections incorporated into the contract (see, Broadview layoff arbitration #340). The grievance was sustained in part. The non federally created positions had not been properly abolished and the affected employees were awarded lost wages for the period of their improper abolishments. 390 The grievant was a Therapeutic Program Worker who was removed for abusing a patient by restraining him in a manner not provided for in the client’s restraint program. The client was acting out while eating and the grievant either choked or placed the client in a bear hug. The arbitrator found that the employer proved that the grievant abused the client. The grievant was shown to have engaged in acts inconsistent with clients’ human rights by restraining the client in a way not permitted by the client’s program or the agency’s policies. The testimony of the employer’s witnesses was found to be more credible than that of the grievant, and there was no evidence of coercion by the employer or collusion among the witnesses. The arbitrator recognized that if abuse was proven, then no authority exists to reduce the penalty of removal, thus the grievance was denied. 409 The grievant was hired as a Tax Commissioner Agent and had received a written reprimand for poor performance while still in his probationary period. He was assigned a new supervisor who developed a plan to improve his performance, however the grievant continued to receive discipline for poor performance and absenteeism, including a ten day suspension which was reduced pursuant to a last chance agreement. It was discovered after the last chance agreement had been made, that prior to the signing of the last chance agreement, the grievant had
committed other acts of neglect of duty. The grievant was removed for neglect of duty. The arbitrator held that a valid last chance agreement would bar an arbitrator form applying the just cause standard to a disciplinary action and that the agreement made by the grievant was valid. It was also found that there existed hostility between the grievant and his supervisor, the employer stacked charges by basing discipline on events which occurred prior to the last chance agreement, and that the discipline did not afford the grievant an opportunity to correct his behavior. The removal was upheld despite the employer’s acts because of the last chance agreement but the grievant was awarded 4 weeks back pay because of the employer’s failure to comply with the union’s discovery requests. 412 The outcome of a grievance does not rest on the fact that a grievant is acquitted in court, but instead is based on the nature of evidence and testimony provided to the arbitrator. 440 (1992- 94 contract) Holdings of courts are not binding upon an arbitrator. 440 (1992-94 contract) Because the grievant failed to comply with the arbitration award by failing to obtain a modification of his driver’s license suspension. The employer had just cause to remove him. The grievant allowed his driver’s license to expire, preventing him from obtaining a modification order, and thereby, making it impossible for him to perform his job duties, which consisted largely of driving state vehicles. 441(A) (1992-94 contract) An Arbitrator’s job is to give the meaning the parties intended to their words. The Arbitrator can neither add nor subtract. In the case of the Five Year Rule, the parties explicitly referred the reader to specific Ohio Revised Code and administrative Rules sections in Article 18 of the Contract. Where the Contract modifies the rules and procedures in the ORC and OAC, the Contract governs. Where the Contract does NOT modify those rules and procedures, the ORC and OAC govern. Article 18, unlike other Articles in the Contract, makes documents other than the Contract the basis of substantive rules and only modifies those rules by the Contract enumerations. 450 (1992-94 contract) Disputes dealing with job abolishments and layoffs are arbitrable. 454 (1992-94 contract) The employer has not shown that even though the retirement of public employees is a matter of law and because an early retirement plan benefit is not specifically a contractual benefit, there are sufficient reasons to preclude the grievance from being found arbitrable. 458 (1992-94 contract) The parties have negotiated how many steps are in each pay range, and so it is outside the authority granted by Article 25.03 of the Contract to create an additional step in any pay range. 462 (1992-94 contract) Unless there is express, exclusionary language limiting the grievability and/or arbitrability of any contract provision, that provision is grievable and arbitrable. 469 (1992-94 contract) Because the nature of the grievance deals with the grievant’s standing within Bargaining Unit 14, the statutorily defined unit, the matter is arbitrable. 472 (1992-94 contract) The Arbitrator rejected the Employer’s contention that the Arbitrator cannot rule on whether the abolishment procedure was correct because the statute which set up the Ohio High Speed Rail Authority is not incorporated into the Contract. 474(1992-94 contract) The arbitrator is not bound to the contents of the job abolishment rationale because the review of the substantive justification of the abolishment is a trial de novo before the Arbitrator, where the Employer shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the job abolishment meets the standards imposed by the Ohio Revised Code. 476 (1992-94 contract) The arbitrator rejected the proposition that the Arbitrator cannot rule on the procedural propriety but can rule on the substantive propriety, stating that this flies in the face of logic and common sense. 476 (1992-94 contract) The class modernization back pay grievance is arbitrable because certain employee rights may have vested before the employees left service. The rights here vested or accrued at the time of the back pay agreement. 484 (1992-94 contract) The Arbitrator determined that the Class Modernization Back Pay grievance was a statewide class grievance under Article 25. The
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 and 186: employee in her right to bring a gr
Page 187 and 188: 26, 1994. The language of Contract
Page 189: y the grievant, would be compensabl
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?