by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

The grievant became involved in an EAP
program prior to receiving notice of pending
discipline, and as such, this was a mitigating
circumstance in modifying his removal. 456
(1992-94 contract)
The employer and grievant signed a last chance
agreement, which included EAP completion,
after the employer ordered the removal of the
grievant based on a charge of patient abuse, a
charge which was not grieved. The grievant
failed to meet the conditions of the last chance
agreement, and so the employer had just cause to
activate the discipline held in abeyance,
regardless of any mitigating circumstances. 465
(1992-94 contract)
The fact that the grievant enrolled in the EAP is
irrelevant, particularly because the grievant
inquired about EAP only after disciplinary action
had begun. 466 (1992-94 contract)
Involvement in EAP is voluntary; therefore,
ODOT’s refusal to enter into an EAP agreement
with the grievant was not fatal to its case and
was within its rights under Article 5. This is
especially true since the grievant was previously
convicted of theft, but never removed; there was
no evidence that ODOT was predisposed to
remove the grievant, and there was no evidence
that the grievant was subject to disparate
treatment. 500 (1992-94 contract)
The Arbitrator determined that the employer did
not have just cause to discharge the grievant for
three off duty alcohol related incidents. The
grievant was reinstated to his former position on
a conditional last chance basis. The conditions
included the nonreoccurrence of similar off-duty
misconduct and continued participation in
individual after-care counseling and self-help
support groups to the extent determined by the
State’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) or
its designee. 577 (1994-97 contract)
ARTICLE 11 - HEALTH AND SAFETY
Management established a list of intermittent
employees to assist in ice and snow removal.
The Union alleged that this action violated
Article 11 of the contract because this action
would result in unsafe working conditions. The
Arbitrator determined that the Union failed to
establish that intermittent employees presented
any threat to health and safety. 596 (1994-97
contract.
Despite the testimony and evidence presented by
the Union concerning health and safety issues,
the arbitrator found that he could not stop the
closure of LCI. First, while there was no doubt
that prisons are a difficult and dangerous
workplace, it did not appear that the “relatively
small increase in crowding increases the threat to
health and safety”. Second, there were actions
that could be taken to improve the effects if
crowding. The arbitrator stated the stated and
Union must work together to resolve the issues.
839
Throughout 2007 there was confusion
about what was required to be
purchased and what was optional for
fire-resistant (FR) clothing. The Traffic
Engineer, the Grievants’ supervisor,
relied on information from the ODOT
Central Office and required the
Grievants to wear the FR shirt and pants
beginning in October, 2007. The
supervisor rescinded the order in
February, 2008 when she received the
following email: “All FR Safety
Apparel which has already been
purchased can be distributed to
employees if they wish to wear it.
Since the apparel is only recommended,
it will be the employer’s responsibility
to wash and maintain the safety
apparel.” The supervisor instructed the
Grievants to wear the pants and suit if
they wished, but cleaning and
maintenance was their responsibility.
The contract between the parties states
that the arbitrator cannot impose an
obligation that is “not specifically
required by the expressed language of
this Agreement.” OSHA does not
require FR clothing as personal
protective equipment for the Grievants
in the text of Section 1910.335. The
Arbitrator held that the Employer was
not obligated under Article 11.02 to
provide FR shirts and pants to the
Grievants and, consequently, did not
have any obligation to clean and
maintain same. Because the traffic
engineer ordered the five Grievants to
wear the FR shirt and pants from
October, 2007 to February, 2008, the
Employer was contractually responsible
for the cost of cleaning and maintaining