by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

opportunity to compare the statements with the oral
testimony to check for consistency. (2) The, Union should
not have to guess at what witnesses will testify to when the
witnesses’ version of the events have already been reduced
to writing. 116
The request for documents was proper since it was specific,
relevant to the grievance, and reasonably available from the
employer. In addition, the request was initiated prior to the
arbitration hearing and was not a “fishing expedition”. 118
Arguments by the employer that it ought not have to provide
the union with certain documents because of policy
considerations, and because it helps the union prepare its
case, provide weak justifications in light of the specific
language negotiated by the parties: 118
Employee assistance program. 151, 162
Confusion with regard to the state’s obligation to furnish
documents such as witnesses’ statements, incident reports,
and investigative reports when requested by the union at or
after step one is no excuse given the ample arbitral
precedent under 25.08 of the contract. Tardy production of
such materials is a due process violation. 192
Section 25.08 requires employer to honor reasonable
requests from the union during the grievance process for
access to witnesses relevant to the case. 230
Section 25.08 does not require employer to supply unionrequested
witnesses prior to the grievance procedure. 230
To prove that the employer violated 25.08 by failing to
provide a witness, evidence must be given to show that the
Union requested to interview the witness prior to arbitration
or was denied the presence of the witness at the arbitration
hearing. Assertions in the opening and closing arguments
are not sufficient. 257
Sections 24.04 and 25.08 were not violated when the
employer failed to provide the work product of the security
force investigation until just before the arbitration hearing.
The security force did not release the information to the
employer until that time which was when it determined that
criminal and/or civil proceedings were no longer
contemplated. Management requested the work product but
was refused. Thus, management neither relied on the
documents at issue, nor were they reasonably available.
Management is allowed to rely on the documents at
arbitration because the union introduced them into evidence.
The bifurcated investigation procedure is reasonable on its
face since collateral investigations cannot be made the basis
for discipline but can only be used as supporting evidence.
263
Discovery under Section 25.08 is to be broad. In the case
under consideration, where the main witness was a
supervisor whose credibility was crucial, his disciplinary
record was a reasonable request. Whether anything in that
record is “relevant” for purposes of admission at the hearing
would be ultimately the decision of the arbitrator. 277
A failure by the state to supply the personnel records of non-
State employees or exempt employees was not in error.
Although the State should, have to provide information that
is available to the general public, the Union’s request was
not sufficiently specific and the Union did not show that the
complete files were relevant to the grievance. 286
The Union’s request for the personnel records of women
that claimed the grievant sexually harassed them was not
specific enough and did not make a showing of relevance
that the failure by the State to had over the files was not a
procedural defect. 286
When the employer sought to admit photographs taken of
the alleged victim, the Union objected on the grounds that
they had not been provided at the predisciplinary or Step 3
meetings. There is no evidence that the employer
deliberately suppressed this evidence as, for example,
keeping secret their existence or refusing a request by the
Union to see them. The photographs do not establish a new
fact, but merely corroborate the statements of several
witnesses – including a Union witness – that the youth had
marks on his face. The arbitrator therefore found no undue
hardship in admitting and crediting the evidence of the
photographs. 300
The Union protested that the State did not produce
witnesses that the Union considered important to its case.
This protest was dismissed by the arbitrator. If the Union
desired witnesses, it had the right to subpoena them. The
Union had no reasonable expectation of relying on the
employer to help the Union’s case. The Union is entitled to
demand that the employer provide it with available
witnesses and documents under Section 25.08 of the
Agreement. 302
The Union objected that the State withheld certain
documents and protested their admittance into evidence.
When the arbitrator sustained the Union’s objection and
refused to admit the documents into evidence this was
deemed a complete remedy for the employer’s violation of
the disclosure requirements. By excluding the material from
the arbitration, the arbitrator did not allow the evidence to
be used to support discipline. 302
The employer violated Section 24.04 of the Agreement by
not making the youths statements and photographs available
to the Union and this is considered when fashioning a
remedy and Section 25.08. The conference report was held
to be discoverable once the final disciplinary decision has
been made and the grievance is filed. 326
The grievant was a Corrections Officer removed for using
vulgar language, conducting union business on work time,
and fondling an inmate. The arbitrator rejected the claim
that the Union had a right to question witnesses at the predisciplinary
hearing. Nor did the employer violate Article