by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The triggering event for a grievance to be timely is not the grievant’s removal but the alleged improper classification of the grievant as a probationary employee. Even if the grievant did not know he was a probationary employee until his removal, as he claims, he should have know much earlier. Numerous occasions existed to put the grievant on notice upon which a reasonable person in the grievant’s place could have acted. 455 (1992-94 contract) The filing window commenced each time the grievant was on call and not compensated with standby pay. 464 (1992-94 contract) In this grievance regarding life insurance benefits, it was timely filed as it became ripe when the grievant’s heirs sought a benefit on behalf of her estate and were denied: 469 (1992- 94 contract) The Arbitrator concluded that the grievance was timely filed under Article 25 of the Contract, because the grievant filed within 30 days of when she became aware of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance. 551 (1994-97 contract) The grievant was charged with failure to make a physical head count of inmates at the facility after three previous counts had resulted in different figures. Following that incident, the grievant found two metal shanks, which he documented and secured. Prior to finding the shanks, the grievant found 16 pieces of metal hidden in a ceiling. He disposed of them in a secured receptacle which was not accessible to inmates. He did not report finding the metal. The Union argued that a procedural flaw occurred in this matter in that a second predisciplinary hearing was held and a second charge was leveled against the grievant, leading Synopsis of documents do not satisfy the provision of documents requirement. 38 Contract does not provide that union will automatically prevail on any issue where the state failed to provide documents. 38 While provision of synopsis documents does not meet the requirement in §25.08, where state later provides the complete documents, arbitrator determined that the error was minor and was not sufficient basis for overturning the discharge. 38 to his removal. The arbitrator found no procedural error. He found that when the Employer reconvened the pre-disciplinary hearing and that was not prohibited by the contract. He stated that if that were a procedural error, it was minimal at best and a decision could be reached on the merits of the case alone. The grievant was an experienced Correction Officer and well-versed in the detection of contraband which was evidenced by his numerous commendations. The arbitrator found that he grievant made a judgment when he found the metal blanks and placed them in a secured receptacle. Although the grievant’s decision may have been erroneous, the arbitrator noted that there are no precise definitions for “hot trash” versus contraband. In his decision, the arbitrator stated, “As ambiguity exists concerning the treatment of contraband found by Officers discharge for disposing of the metal blanks rather than reporting them is inappropriate.” The grievant’s removal was reduced to a written warning for failure to report contraband. All references to his discharge were to be stricken from his personnel record. Back was made at straight time minus any interim earnings. 914 25.06 – Time Off, Meeting Use, and Telephone Use 25.06 requires employer to approve reasonable requests from the union during the grievance process for access to witnesses relevant to the case: 230 25.06 does not require employer to supply union requested witnesses prior to the grievance procedure. 230 25.08 – Relevant Witnesses And Information State statutes or regulations (in this case protecting patient confidentiality) do not provide state with a reasonable basis for refusing to provide information, since section 43.01 of the contract determines that the contract supersedes any conflicting state law. 39 A clear distinction must be drawn between whether a document is discoverable under §25.08 and whether the same document is “relevant” evidence before the arbitrator. Receipt of a discoverable document is no guarantee that the document will be considered in the evidence. Nor does consideration by the arbitrator
guarantee that a document has sufficient weight to be either credible or probative. 53 In regard to whether manager’s disciplinary recommendations are reasonably available arbitrator said, “The management responsibilities of department heads and deputy administrators include, one supposes, making disciplinary recommendations. The arbitrator fails to see how making these responsibilities secret will On its face, 25.08 includes broad discovery. 53 Relevancy in discovery is traditionally s ignificantly more liberal than in evidentiary matters. 53 Since the purpose of the arbitration is to determine whether the decisions to discipline was made with “just cause,” any information used to arrive at the at decision is “relevant to that grievance” for the purpose of discovery. 53 Section 43.01 gives precedence to the agreement over any statute other than ORC 4117, where such statues conflict with the agreement. Thus, the requirement in §25.08 that the state produce evidence requested by the union supercedes the Ohio Highway Patrol’s statutory privilege in ORC 149.43. 75 The union has the right to discover the predisciplinary report only after the final disciplinary decision has been made. This preserves the situation here both sides present their statements simultaneously to the disciplinary authority with neither having the opportunity to rebut the other. 83 Arbitrator followed opinion #53: Pre-disciplinary reports are discoverable. 83 There is a distinction between what is discoverable under §25.08 and what is admissible at the arbitration hearing. 83 In regard to whether manager’s disciplinary Complete incident reports are both relevant to the grievance and reasonably available under 25.08 and hence are discoverable. 83 Discovery rights. 86 Section 25.08 specifically provides that not only documents, but witnesses reasonably available from the employer, be made available for arbitration. 106 While the arbitrator found that A-302(F) did not require a written pre-disciplinary report, she was troubled by the practice since she had held in a previous arbitration that written pre-disciplinary reports are discoverable under 25.08. 109 contribute to a reasonable and fair process. If knowing that their words will be scrutinized will cause persons to choose words carefully, then so be it. The arbitrator finds that well chosen, reasonable words will strengthen the process, not “chill” it. 83 A deliberate action to avoid the essence of 25.08 (by deliberately failing to provide the pre-disciplinary report) would violate the implicit due process requirements of the contract. The arbitrator took note of the absence of evidence that the action had been deliberate in this case. 109 Discovery. 116 The Arbitrator concluded that the Employer's refusal to provide a transcript of the resident's interview and witness statements did constitute a violation of Sections 25.08 and 24.01 of the Contract. The Union was entitled to those statements and the Employer could not unilaterally determine that statements of eyewitnesses were not relevant and refuse to produce them. The Union would have no opportunity to determine whether those statements were inconsistent with the oral testimony of the witnesses and would be forced to guess at a witness' testimony when it had previously been reduced to writing. Withholding the statement of the victim of an alleged abuse was particularly prejudicial. Had a witness been unavailable to testify, the Union and the Arbitrator would have been deprived of the key information that the resident had admitted falsely accusing the Grievant of threatening him with a knife. The Arbitrator concluded that the Employer’s violations of Section 25.08 also constitute a failure to establish just cause for Grievant's removal as required by Section 24.01 of the Contract. 116 Section 442.502, CFR, a regulation that protects patient confidentiality in certain ways, supersedes 25.08 where 25.08 conflicts with the regulation. The parties did not intend for the contract to supersede federal laws and regulations. 116 The employer violated 25.08 by refusing to provide the union with a transcript of an investigatory interview of the patient who made the allegation against the grievant. It was a serious violation since it contained the statement of the alleged victim. The seriousness is highlighted in this case where the victim had admitted that part of the allegation had been false. 116 The employer violated 25.08 by refusing to furnish the written statements of certain persons that had been taken at step 3. That the persons testified at the arbitration hearing does not cure the violation. (1) The Union should have 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 and 190: y the grievant, would be compensabl
Page 191 and 192: committed other acts of neglect of
Page 193: filed a grievance arguing that assi
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?