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.
language should be read in conjunction with<br />
language found elsewhere in Section 1.03;<br />
“supervisors shall only perform bargaining unit<br />
work to the extent that they have previously<br />
performed such work.” Arbitrator Keenan has<br />
determined in an earlier arbitration that one<br />
should look to the date that the contract became<br />
effective to determine if supervisors were doing<br />
bargaining unit work at the time. 156<br />
The contract states that the state will make every<br />
reasonable effort to decrease the amount of<br />
bargaining unit work done <strong>by</strong> supervisors. This<br />
provision was violated where a supervisor<br />
position which included bargaining unit work in<br />
the classification specification, was vacant when<br />
the contract went into effect but was later filled<br />
<strong>by</strong> a supervisor who went on to do the<br />
bargaining unit work required <strong>by</strong> his<br />
classification specification. 156<br />
The mutual intention of the parties will be<br />
violated where a non-bargaining unit person<br />
performs the tasks once done <strong>by</strong> members of the<br />
bargaining unit. 156<br />
To the extent a supervisor did not do bargaining<br />
unit tasks on July 1, 1986 which he now does,<br />
the agreement has been violated <strong>by</strong> the<br />
employer. 156<br />
Where the arbitrator had ruled that the employer<br />
had violated the contract <strong>by</strong> having supervisors<br />
perform bargaining unit work, the arbitrator<br />
declined to order the employer to assign the<br />
work to a specific bargaining unit member,<br />
stating that such a determination was “within the<br />
purview of the employer.” The arbitrator did<br />
order that supervisors stop doing the work. 156<br />
Section 1.03 of the Agreement concerns itself<br />
with the integrity of the bargaining unit<br />
represented <strong>by</strong> the Union. In essence it provides<br />
that the employer may not act is such a fashion<br />
as to erode the bargaining unit <strong>by</strong> improperly<br />
removing work from bargaining unit employees.<br />
In this case a Mental Health Technician 1 was<br />
performing the duties of a Computer Operator 2.<br />
The employer improperly sanctioned employees<br />
working out of the bargaining unit. 280<br />
The State may not erode the bargaining unit<br />
through the layoff procedure. Supervisors and<br />
other employees working out of class may not<br />
take over the laid off employee’s duties. 28 *<br />
The grievant was found to be working within his<br />
classification and whether a supervisor is present<br />
at work is a matter fort the employer to<br />
determine. The presence or absence of a<br />
supervisor does not go to the issue of whether<br />
the employer is rescheduling the grievant to<br />
avoid overtime. 303<br />
A mere job transfer does not equal a job<br />
abolishment; the position was not permanently<br />
eliminated. The employer also violated Section<br />
1.03 of the Agreement <strong>by</strong> having a supervisor<br />
take over bargaining unit work. 340<br />
The employer properly abolished the positions of<br />
three Hospital Aide Coordinator I’s. The work<br />
was distributed to other employees holding<br />
different positions. The fact that one HAC was<br />
working out of her classification prior to the<br />
abolishment reinforces the employer’s argument<br />
that this position was no longer required. The<br />
employer’s need for more direct care staff to<br />
follow a “normalization” program was<br />
legitimate and the abolishments were a way to<br />
efficiently pursue this goal. 340<br />
The Ohio Penal Industries operated shops in<br />
which inmates work and bargaining unit<br />
employees supervise them. Prior to June 1989<br />
three bargaining unit members and two<br />
management employees were assigned to the<br />
shop. One bargaining unit member then retired,<br />
but his vacancy was not posted but rather the<br />
duties were assumed <strong>by</strong> a management<br />
employee. The arbitrator rejected the<br />
employer’sargument that there had been no<br />
increase in bargaining unit work performed <strong>by</strong><br />
management. It was found that despite general<br />
inmate supervision performed <strong>by</strong> management,<br />
the duties assumed after the bargaining unit<br />
member’s retirement were a material and<br />
substantial increase. This increase in the amount<br />
of bargaining unit work done <strong>by</strong> management<br />
was held to be a violation of Section 1.03, the<br />
grievance was sustained and the employer was<br />
ordered to cease performing bargaining unit<br />
work and post the vacancy in the shop. 406<br />
1.04 (formerly 1.03 of the 1986 and 1989<br />
contract)<br />
Bargaining Unit work<br />
Section 1.03 is intended to give bargaining unit<br />
employees first crack at overtime before work<br />
goes to non-bargaining unit employees, but in