by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

the co-worker allegedly threatened, who had a deteriorated relationship with the Grievant since the events of a prior discipline. The investigator did not consider that the coworker may have exaggerated or over-reacted. Management’s handwritten notes were held to be discoverable under Article 25.09. It had refused to produce them until after the grievance was filed and then had to be transcribed for clarity, which delayed the arbitration. The investigator breached the just cause due process requirement for a fair and objective investigation which requires that whoever conducts the investigation do so looking for exculpatory evidence as well as evidence of guilt. Then, to make matters worse, the same investigator served as the third step hearing officer, essentially reviewing his own preformed opinion. 985 The Arbitrator concluded that more likely than not the Grievant transported a cell phone into the institution within the period in question, violating Rule 30, by using it to photograph her fellow officers. The Arbitrator held that the Agency clearly had probable cause to subpoena and search 13 months of the Grievant’s prior cell phone records. The prospect of serious present consequences from prior, easily perpetrated violations supported the probable cause. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant violated Rule 38 by transporting the cell phone into the institution and by using it to telephone inmates’ relatives. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant did not violate Rule 46(A) since the Grievant did not have a “relationship” with the inmates, using the restricted definition in the language of the rule. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant did not violate Rule 24. The Agency’s interpretation of the rule infringed on the Grievant’s right to develop her defenses and to assert her constitutional rights. The mitigating factors included: the Agency established only two of the four charges against the Grievant; the Grievant’s almost thirteen years of experience; and her record of satisfactory job performance and the absence of active discipline. However, the balance of aggravative and mitigative factors indicated that the Grievant deserved a heavy dose of discipline. Just cause is not violated by removal for a first violation of Rules 30 and 38. 1003 ARTICLE 26 – HOLIDAYS Article 26 does not establish criteria for whether an employee who had an authorized leave of absence the day before a holiday will receive holiday pay for the holiday. 21 No dispute exists that non part-time employees are entitled to be paid the “normal” number of hours they would be scheduled to work as holiday/straight time pay. The dispute centers upon number of hours part-time employees are to be paid as holiday pay under Article 26.02 and/or straight time pay under Article 26.03. The language to standardize the computation of holiday pay for part-time employees was accomplished during negotiations and the evidence offered by the Union fails to contradict the final written agreement. The reading of Article 26.03 in conjunction with Article 26.02 does not modify the language to make it ambiguous or unclear. The parties could have made it clear in Article 26.02 that part-time employees who work holidays were entitled to holiday pay based upon the actual hours worked that day. They did not. There is no evidence to find that a mutual mistake occurred which would require reformation. 990 26.02 – Work on Holidays An employee is on a “regular” schedule, for the purposes of 26.02 and 13.07, if the schedule is predictable. Thus, even a rotating schedule can be a regular schedule. 93 No dispute exists that non part-time employees are entitled to be paid the “normal” number of hours they would be scheduled to work as holiday/straight time pay. The dispute centers upon number of hours part-time employees are to be paid as holiday pay under Article 26.02 and/or straight time pay under Article 26.03. The language to standardize the computation of holiday pay for part-time employees was accomplished during negotiations and the evidence offered by the Union fails to contradict the final written agreement. The reading of Article 26.03 in conjunction with Article 26.02 does not modify the language to make it ambiguous or unclear. The parties could have made it clear in Article 26.02 that part-time employees who work holidays were entitled to holiday pay based upon the actual hours worked that day. They did not. There is no evidence to find that a mutual mistake occurred which would require reformation. 990 Section 26.02 was newly negotiated contract language in the 2006-2009 collective bargaining agreement. The disputed language was proposed by the Employer and accepted by the Union. The Arbitrator held that the Employer did not violate Section 26.02 when it implemented and applied a formula for calculating part-time employees’ holiday pay. Section 26.02 contains language which is clear and unambiguous because holiday pay is pro-rated and based on the daily average of actual hours worked. The parties admitted the primary goal with the provision was to standardize outcomes across and within agencies. The Union argued that the parties did not intend to have any workers harmed as a consequence of the new formula. The Arbitrator held that maintaining holiday pay outcomes within this circumstance were highly unlikely, since the parties agreed to a standardized methodology, where various methodologies were employed in the past. This would result in some employees having holiday pay increases or decreases from pre-negotiated methods of calculation. 1008
26.03 Work on Holidays No dispute exists that non part-time employees are entitled to be paid the “normal” number of hours they would be scheduled to work as holiday/straight time pay. The dispute centers upon number of hours part-time employees are to be paid as holiday pay under Article 26.02 and/or straight time pay under Article 26.03. The language to standardize the computation of holiday pay for part-time employees was accomplished during negotiations and the evidence offered by the Union fails to contradict the final written agreement. The reading of Article 26.03 in conjunction with Article 26.02 does not modify the language to make it ambiguous or unclear. The parties could have made it clear in Article 26.02 that part-time employees who work holidays were entitled to holiday pay based upon the actual hours worked that day. They did not. There is no evidence to find that a mutual mistake occurred which would require reformation. 990 26.04 – Eligibility for Holiday Pay After approval of the 2006-2009 contract, a number of disputes arose over the interpretation and application of Section 26.04 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The parties agreed to submit two questions to an Arbitrator and to use his answers as a guide in resolving the pending grievances. Question two consisted of ten scenarios for when an employee would or would not be eligible for holiday pay. In two scenarios the employee may or may not meet the standard depending on the nature of the sickness. (In cases where an employee’s ability to report for work is not clear, the state has the right to ask the employee for further documentation.) The first scenario is if an employee calls in sick and then provides a doctor’s slip confirming the sickness, which does not explain how the sickness prevented him/her from working. The second scenario is if an employee calls in because his/her minor, dependent child is sick and the employee provides a doctor’s slip confirming the sickness, which does not explain how the child’s sickness prevented the employee from working. This case is currently being appealed by the union in court. 950** No dispute exists that non part-time employees are entitled to be paid the “normal” number of hours they would be scheduled to work as holiday/straight time pay. The dispute centers upon number of hours part-time employees are to be paid as holiday pay under Article 26.02 and/or straight time pay under Article 26.03. The language to standardize the computation of holiday pay for part-time employees was accomplished during negotiations and the evidence offered by the Union fails to contradict the final written agreement. The reading of Article 26.03 in conjunction with Article 26.02 does not modify the language to make it ambiguous or unclear. The parties could have made it clear in Article 26.02 that part-time employees who work holidays were entitled to holiday pay based upon the actual hours worked that day. They did not. There is no evidence to find that a mutual mistake occurred which would require reformation. 990 ARTICLE 27 – PERSON LEAVE The Arbitrator found that the Employer did not violate Section 11.11 because the Employer engaged in a good faith effort to provide alternative comparable work and equal pay to the two pregnant Grievants. On four of five scheduled work days the employees would work “relief” in “noncontact” posts. On the fifth day the Union requested that the two employees be assigned an “extra” or “ghost” post or be permitted to take the day off and use accrued leave for coverage purposes. However, the Warden placed the Union on notice that the institution could no longer have pregnant employees assigned to posts as extras. Certain posts were properly rejected based on the Grievants’ doctor recommendations. The Union’s proposals would have resulted in “ghost posts.” The Grievants would have worked in positions at the expense of other established posts. Also, unapproved “ghost posts” would violate the spirit of the local Pick-A-Post agreement. Proposed uses of accrued leave balances, personal leave, and sick leave failed. Nothing in the record indicated the Grievants had sufficient leave balances available to cover one day off per week. In addition, if the Grievants were allowed to take vacation time on dates previously selected, the Employer would be violating a mutually agreed to number of vacation days made available for bid. Other correction officers’ seniority rights would be violated if vacations were preferentially granted to pregnant employees. Section 27.02 entitles an employee to four personal leave days each year; however those four days could not possibly cover the entire pregnancy period. Section 29.02 grants sick leave to employees “unable to work because of sickness or injury.” A pregnancy cannot be viewed as an “illness or injury.” 941 27.02 – Personal Leave Accrual Articles 27 and 29 both contain language which provide for employees to accrue benefits while on Workers’ Compensation leave. Article 28, dealing with vacations, does not provide this. The failure of the Contract to provide similar entitlements for vacation time, as it does in Article 27 and 29, is evidence that no entitlement was intended. 546 (1992-94 contract) The employer neither violated Section 31.01 of the Collective bargaining Agreement nor relevant sections of the Ohio Revised Code when it failed to allow the accrual of vacation and personal leave while the Grievant was on a leave of absence and on active duty in the military. Vacation leave accruals as specified in Section 28.01 required active pay status which the grievant did not possess. Similarly, personal leave accruals only arise when as employee is on a paid leave of absence, and Section 31.01(E) defines military leave as unpaid leave with a proviso. The Revised Code also fails to articulate the type
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 and 194: filed a grievance arguing that assi
Page 195 and 196: guarantee that a document has suffi
Page 197: 25.08 because the union made excess
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?