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.
State recognized this as a statewide issue and<br />
reacted accordingly <strong>by</strong> admitting that the<br />
Department of Health could not resolve this<br />
issue at the Department level. 484 (1992-94<br />
contract)<br />
The Arbitrator rejected the State’s argument that<br />
awarding back pay for missed overtime<br />
opportunities violates the <strong>Contract</strong> <strong>by</strong> going<br />
outside the authority of the arbitrator. 491<br />
(1992-94 contract)<br />
Under <strong>Contract</strong> Article 25.03, the Arbitrator is<br />
given authority to decide questions of authority<br />
and to determine the merits of a grievance. In the<br />
case at hand, the Arbitrator held that a dispute<br />
where<strong>by</strong> a grievant was removed following a<br />
criminal conviction for patient abuse was<br />
arbitrable and that the case could be decided on<br />
its merits. 560 (1994- 97 contract)<br />
The Arbitrator concluded that the State had<br />
agreed to combine grievance numbers 251 and<br />
302. Because the grievances involved many of<br />
the same facts, it was logical to combine them.<br />
628 (1997-2000 contract)<br />
The grievant was removed from MANCI as a<br />
CO and transferred to OSP. A settlement<br />
agreement was entered into <strong>by</strong> the parties on<br />
December 4, 2001 granting the transfer to OSP<br />
but also allowing for the grievant to carry his<br />
institutional seniority with him to OSP under<br />
paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement. The<br />
<strong>OCSEA</strong> then intervened declaring the settlement<br />
agreement violated Art. §16.01(B)- Institutional<br />
Seniority of the CBA. Subsequently, <strong>OCSEA</strong><br />
with OCB’s consent amended the settlement<br />
agreement to remove paragraph 5 (the<br />
transferring of institutional seniority). The<br />
arbitrator found that the failure to transfer the<br />
institutional seniority as proscribed in the<br />
settlement agreement did not violate the rights of<br />
the grievant since settlement agreements can<br />
only work within the confines of the CBA, in<br />
which this particular agreement did not. No<br />
other provisions in the CBA allowed such a<br />
settlement agreement <strong>by</strong> the parties to work<br />
outside of the provisions provided <strong>by</strong> the CBA.<br />
The arbitrator further found that the settlement<br />
agreement did not need to be executed <strong>by</strong> the<br />
grievant unless a waiver of individual right’s was<br />
at issue, which was not at issue in this case.<br />
Therefore, the amending of the settlement<br />
agreement without the grievant consenting was<br />
valid. 818<br />
The Agency issued an announcement that an<br />
employee in an Administrative Assistant 3<br />
classified exempt position had been selected as<br />
the EEO Officer for the Agency. A hearing was<br />
waived and the parties presented written briefs<br />
with largely undisputed facts. Then the arbitrator<br />
had a telephone conference with representatives<br />
from each party combined. To uphold the<br />
fairness of the procedure, the Grievant submitted<br />
a sworn affidavit waiving his right to have the<br />
grievance heard in person. Classification<br />
language was the first issue. The Agency’s<br />
announcement that an exempt employee would<br />
serve as EEO Officer does not constitute an<br />
announcement that the employee is occupying a<br />
class title belonging to the bargaining unit. The<br />
duties assigned <strong>by</strong> the Agency are similar to the<br />
EEO Manager class title, one of the four exempt<br />
class titles that are within the DAS classification<br />
Series 6913 entitled “EEO Officer.” The second<br />
issue was a policy consideration: Who should be<br />
the EEO Officer—a bargaining unit member or<br />
an exempt employee? The questions of who<br />
should perform the duties and to whom they<br />
should be assigned were beyond the scope of an<br />
arbitrator’s duties. The contract limits the<br />
arbitrator to “disputes involving the<br />
interpretation, application or alleged violation of<br />
a provision of the Agreement.” The contract<br />
does not give the arbitrator the authority to<br />
consider and answer questions that appeal only<br />
to the arbitrator’s personal sense of what is fair<br />
or just. The third issue was bargaining unit<br />
erosion. The part-time duties of the EEO Officer<br />
at the Agency had always been performed <strong>by</strong><br />
management personnel. Therefore, the<br />
assignment of duties to an exempt employee as<br />
EEO Officer was the same action that the<br />
Agency had taken over the past several years.<br />
Since the amount of bargaining unit work<br />
performed <strong>by</strong> supervisors did not increase, the<br />
arbitrator found no basis for claim that the<br />
Agency took action for the purpose of eroding<br />
bargaining unit work. The grievance was denied.<br />
963<br />
On April 24, 2006 the Agency posted a position<br />
for an Environmental Specialist 1 (ES1). Later<br />
the Agency withdrew that posting and applicants<br />
were sent letters on or about May 26, 2006 that<br />
the position would not be filled. Then the<br />
agency posted for an Administrative Assistant 2,<br />
with a job description which was essentially the<br />
same as that of the ES1. That position was filled<br />
on June 26, 2006. On July 6, 2006 the Union