by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

25.08 because the union made excessive document requests.
The employer did violate Article 25.02 by not issuing a Step
3 response for six (6) months, however the grievant was not
prejudiced. Therefore, the arbitrator found, because the
inmate was more credible than the grievant, that just cause
did exist for the removal. 366
The grievant was a Corrections Officer who was removed
for watching inmates play cards while they were outside
their housing unit. The grievant admitted this act to his
sergeant. The pre-disciplinary hearing had been rescheduled
due to the grievant’s absence and was held without the
grievant or the employer representative present. The
arbitrator found that because the union representative did
not object to the absence of the employer’s representative
that requirement had been waived. There was also no error
by the employer in failing to produce inmates’ statements as
they had not been used to support discipline. The removal
order was timely as the 45 day limit does not start until a pre
disciplinary hearing is held, not merely scheduled. 377
The grievant was employed as a Salvage Processor who was
responsible for signing off on forms after dangerous goods
had been destroyed. He was removed for falsification of
documents after it was found that he had signed off on
forms for which the goods had not been destroyed. The
arbitrator found that despite minor differences, the signature
on the forms was that of the grievant. The employer was
found to have violated just cause by not investigating the
grievant’s allegation that the signature was forged, and by
failing to provide information to the union so that it could
investigate the incidents. The employer was found not to
have met is burden of proof despite the grievant’s prior
discipline. 398
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 from 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 grievant was a Therapeutic Program Worker who was
removed for abusing a client. The client was known to be
violent and while upset and being restrained, he spat in the
grievant’s face. The grievant either covered or struck the
client in the mouth and some swelling and a small scratch
were found in the client’s mouth. The grievant had served a
70 day suspension for similar behavior. The arbitrator found
that the employer committed procedural violations by not
disclosing the incident report and the client’s progress report
despite the employer’s claim of confidentiality. The
employer’s witnesses were found to be more credible than
the grievant. The grievance was denied. 414
The Union should pay the copying costs of requested
documents. 489** (1992-94 contract)
It is incumbent upon the Employer to inform the Union that
information arguably relevant to the dispute is available,
albeit in a form unknown to the Union. 489** (1992-94
contract)
It is not within the province of the Employer to determine
which documents are necessary for the Union to make its
case. Should the State be able to unilaterally withhold
evidence that the Union regards as relevant to its case, then
the grievance and arbitration procedures will be fatally
compromised. 489** (1992-94 contract)
25.09 Relevant Witnesses and Information
The Arbitrator held that the state properly assigned points to
the applicants for the Computer Operator 4 position and
selected the appropriate applicant for the job. The Grievant
was not selected because her score was more than ten points
below that of the top scorer. The Union argued the Grievant
should have been selected because she was within ten points
of the selected candidate and therefore, should have been
chosen because she had more seniority credits than he did.
The language could be clearer, but the intent is clear. If one
applicant has a score of ten or more points higher than the
other applicants, he or she is awarded the job. If one or
more applicants have scores within ten points of the highest
scoring applicant, the one with the most state seniority is
selected for the position. The Arbitrator pointed out that the
union’s position could result in the lowest scoring person
being granted a job. If that person was awarded the job,
someone within ten points of him or her could argue that he
or she should have gotten the job. The Arbitrator
commented on the union’s complaint that the state violated
Article 25.09 when management refused to provide notes of
the applicants’ interviews. The issue submitted to the
Arbitrator was simply the violation of Article 17. The state
provided the requested material at the arbitration hearing
and the Union had the opportunity to address the notes at
the hearing and in its written closing statement. 976
The Arbitrator held that to sustain a charge of threatening
another employee an employer must have clear and
convincing proof. Here the proof did not even rise to the
preponderance standard, being based solely on the report of