by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Fallsview’s Leave without Pay Policy is not in conflict with
Article 31 of the contract. It merely outlines the procedures
to be followed in processing a request and does not purport
to vary the contractual basis for obtaining such leaves. 91
The grievant went on approved disability leave. She
exhausted her available leave balances and was placed on
Physician’s Verification. The grievant was sent a set of
disability forms, but failed to submit the documents or
contact the personnel office. The arbitrator found that the
grievant’s actions, or inactions, aggravated rather than
mitigated the situation. It is reasonable to expect an
employee experiencing an extended absence to know that
he/she must call his/her supervisor. The grievant made no
attempt to contact her employer. The employer made
several efforts to contact the grievant regarding her absence
and the necessity to contact personnel. Nothing in the
record indicates the employer did not have the grievant’s
telephone number or correct address; nor was there any
indication that the grievant had moved or changed her
number. The arbitrator stated he had to assume the grievant
blatantly disregarded the employer’s efforts. He found it
ironic that had the grievant notified her employer, she could
have filed her disability application in a timely manner. 873
31.01 - Unpaid Leaves
Requested for leave for childcare purposes does not fall into
the categories listed in 31.01 under which the employer is
mandated to grant leave. Where employer has discretion to
deny a leave request, he must articulate a legitimate
nondiscriminatory reason. Denial because of understaffing
due to several staff being on disability leave is a qualifying
reason: 91 Section 31.01 confers discretion upon the state to
grant unpaid leaves of absence for family responsibilities to
employees upon request for a
period not to exceed one year. In exercising its
discretion the state is prohibited from arbitrary or
capricious action. Where the grievant may have had good
reason for leave, but took the leave without waiting for
authorization, the arbitrator held that the state’s discretion
must first be exercised before it is considered arbitrary or
capricious. The arbitrator also held that any delay in the
State’s processing of the application for leave was
outweighed by the grievant’s taking the leave without
authorization. 137
Section 31.01(c) of the contract requires a doctor’s
verification for unpaid medical leave, which the grievant
provided consistently. The Employer waived its right to
insist retroactively on a medical doctor’s verification, as
opposed to a psychologist’s verification, because the
Employer never raised this issue with the grievant. In the
future, the Employer may insist that any diagnosis of mental
illness be verified by a psychiatrist. 446 (1992-94 contract)
Unpaid leave was improperly denied the grievant. The
second medical opinion received by the Agency was
ambiguous and not the proper basis for a decision that the
grievant was physically capable in mind and body to return
to work. 446 (1992-94 contract)
The Employer did not violate the Agreement when it denied
the grievant leave without pay. Approval of leave is not
automatic. 468 (1992-94 contract)
That the grievant called in late, reported to work well after
his call-in, failed to complete a request for leave form for
his absence, and failed to obtain a doctor’s verification is
not enough to justify a seven-day suspension. With just a
one-day suspension on the record, only a two-day
suspension is warranted. 468 (1992-94 contract)
Article 31.01 required the employer to grant unpaid leaves
of absence to an employee who wished to accept an
appointment as a Union representative. 497 (1992-94
contract)
The Arbitrator concluded that the grievant was not entitled
to some form of leave of absence under FMLA and/or ADA
per the Ohio Revised Code because the grievant failed to
provide the employer with sufficient actual or constructive
notice documenting his leave request prior to his proper
removal for job abandonment. 590 (1994-97 contract)
31.03 – Authorization for Leave
Where the employer had not given a response to the
application for leave by the end of the day in which the
application was made, the arbitrator found that the state had
not failed to promptly provide an authorization or denial of
the leave. The arbitrator treated the statements in the
employee handbook about how long it takes to respond to a
request for leave as relevant in determining what is
reasonable. 137
Where the grievant took her leave prior to receiving
authorization, the arbitrator held that the grievant failed to
give the state the opportunity to “promptly” furnish
authorization or denial of her request for leave. 137
The grievant was removed for excessive absenteeism. The
arbitrator stated that the grievant’s absenteeism was
extraordinary as was management’s failure to discipline the
grievant concerning her repetitive absenteeism. The
arbitrator found that the fact that the grievant used all of her
paid leave and failed to apply for leave without pay,
shielded management form the consequences of its laxness.
It was determined that through Article 5, management has
clear authority to remove the grievant for just cause even
though her absenteeism was not due to misconduct if it was
excessive. The arbitrator found that the grievant’s
numerous absences coupled with the fact that she did not
file for workers’ compensation until after termination, and
never applied for unpaid leave, supported management’s
decision to remove her. 791