by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

specifically allows a one-time payment for one hearing before the Industrial Commission. The Arbitrator held that since the Grievant was never paid administrative leave for any hearing before the Industrial Commission, the grievance was granted. The Grievant shall be credited for loss of vacation time, and be paid one day administrative leave, less appropriate deductions. 1035 ARTICLE 35 – DISABILITY BENEFITS 35.01A – Eligibility 35.02 – Disability Review Extensive health problems were not an excuse where employee without direct supervision did not inform employer of absences, was paid for time absent, and did not make use of contractual provision for extended medical leave (35.02 and 35.06). 36 35.03 – Information Dissemination Given the unusual circumstances of the grievant’s return to work (a denial of her request for a disability leave) the grievant had a duty to inform the facility that she was not returning to work. The grievant was injured with the same injury as when she was previously granted disability leave and called the warden with an unclear message about her ability to return to work. The grievant’s message that she would not be able to return to work was ambiguous. The grievant can not unilaterally announce a continuing disability, but the warden had a duty to return the grievant’s call and clarify the situation. It was found that the grievant did abandon her job but there were mitigating factors: No prior discipline and the grievant’s disability leave situation would have been clarified if the warden would have returned the grievant’s call. Since the grievant claimed she could not return to work until a certain date she is estopped from any back pay before that time. The grievant must also provide a doctor’s statement attesting toher ability to work. Back pay is reduced by any unemployment compensation or other interim earnings. 295 The grievant’s claim that he has remained disabled from the time of the removal precludes any award of back pay. 310 Management did not conduct a fair and thorough investigation. While management succeeded in substantiating grievant’s technical violation of the procedures for verifying his inability to work, management did not go the next step and confirm whether or not the employee was indeed able to work. Management made no effort to confirm the doctor’s statement that the grievant offered which stated the grievant was unable to work. Management also failed to contact either the doctor or the grievant to notify them of the unacceptability of the doctor’s statement. The evidence shows that the grievant was indeed unable to work through and past the time of his removal. He provided credible confirmation of this to management, which was rejected solely because of a technicality. The grievant’s offense was one of negligence in sending a tardy response to management’s very tardy information request. Given management’s lackadaisical approach to enforcing its rules against absence without leave, grievant should have been given the benefit of a specific warning of impending discharge prior to any final decision. 356 35A.04 – (formerly Article 35.03 of 1989 contract and Article 35.06 of 1986 contract)-Disability Review The Employer’s testimony that the grievant said she might be going on disability leave contradicts their letter to the grievant stating that the grievant told her supervisor she was in fact going on disability leave. 477 (1992-94 contract) The grievant should have known that the Employer could expect her to seek medical authorization for long absences. 477 (1992-94 contract) 35.06 (formerly Article 35.04 of 1989 contract and Article 35.02 of 1986 contract) – Life Insurance The Union failed to meet its burden of proving that the State violated Article 25.04 by denying sponsored life insurance benefits to the grievant’s estate because she had been employed with the State for less than one year. 469 (1992- 94 contract) The grievant participated in the State’s process informing employees about their benefits, and Section 3.5 of the orientation book clearly and unambiguously sets forth the one-year employment requirement for life insurance eligibility. 469 (1992-94 contract) The one-year eligibility requirement for life insurance has been part of the plan provided since at least 1979. The Union participated in negotiations for two separate agreements in which the pre-existing life insurance plan was incorporated into and rolled over with a minimum of discussion. 469 (1992-94 contract) The record is clear that the State has never paid a sponsored life insurance claim to anyone who was employed with the State for less than one year. The State, therefore, established a bona fide past practice. 469 (1992-94 contract) 35.06 – (1986-89 Contract) Extensive health problems not an excuse where employee without direct supervision did not inform employer of absences, was paid for time absent, and did not make use of contractual provision for extended medical leave (35.02 and 35.06). 36
ARTICLE 36 – WAGES 36.02 – General Wage Increase It was decided that the grievant was not a new State employee but she was a new employee of the agency. According to the Civil Service rules, employees from the State maintain certain benefits when they move from job to job, but the Union did not point out specific language showing that an employee moving from one state agency to another must always move at the same or greater wage rate. The new agency considered the grievant a new hire and it was generally accepted that she had a 120 day probationary period and presumably after successful completion, she would move up a step per Section 36.02 of the Agreement. The grievant’s claim that she merely transferred to the new agency was not supported. Article 17 of the Agreement defines promotions as moving to a higher pay range and a lateral transfer as a movement to a different position at the same pay range. It does not specify that a lateral transfer from one agency to another agency within the State must be at the same step within the same pay range. The employer did not transfer the grievant; she applied for a vacant position: 360 The non-probationary step movement pay in Article 36.03 shall be strictly enforced. Any employees who did not properly receive a pay increase due to management error shall have such errors rectified. Examples of the kind of employees who did not properly receive a pay increase included: a) employees absent on disability who did not have their anniversary date reset correctly, and b) employees who did not receive a step increase including the pay period including July 1, 2005, which commenced on June 26, 2005. The Union was responsible for informing the State, no later than 90 calendar days from Dec. 20, 2005, of any such situated employees. 917 36.04 (formerly Article 36.03 of 1986 contract) Promotions The parties negotiated that there is to be no step above Step 6 in Pay Range 7, and so, the grievant, even though he was promoted from top step of Pay Range 27 to the top of Pay Range 7, is not entitled to a four percent increase as specified in Article 36.04. Given the conflict between 36.04, which grants a four percent increase upon promotion, and the pay schedule rules, to create an additional step would be an act outside the authority of the Arbitrator. 462 (1992-94 contract) 36.05 – Classifications and Pay Range Assignment “Corrections officers” means all corrections officers, no specific group is excluded, i.e., special duty C.O.’s. 107 The 1st sentence of 36.05 mandates that all corrections officers will receive 30 minutes pay as of 7-1-86 regardless of whether they stand roll call or not. The 2nd sentence mandates that current reporting times be continued on 7-1- 86 and does not apply to the continuation of then current wage practices. 107 Roll call discipline. 152 Section 36.05 preserves and carries forward the practices of individual correctional facilities on discipline for roll-call attendance deficiencies. 36.05 is not limited to preserving departmental practices. 152 Section 36.05 states “current practice on reporting time shall be continued unless mutually agreed otherwise.” It must be presumed that the language was not thrown into the Agreement for its appearance – that the negotiators used it for the substantive purpose of preserving roll call practices. In other words, Section 36.05 is an exception to the abolishment of practices brought about by Article 43, Section 43.03. 152 Having decided that the grievant was not qualified for the position, it is unnecessary to decide whether the State was guilty of pre-positioning in violation of Article 36.05. 487 (formerly Article 36.04 of 1986 contract) – Classifications and Pay Range Assignments Under Contract Article 36.05, the employer, through the office of Collective Bargaining, may create classifications, change the pay range of classifications, authorize advance step hiring, if needed for recruitment, or other legitimate reasons, and issue or modify specifications as needed. However, the Office of Collective Bargaining must notify the Union 45 days in advance of any change of pay range specifications. The Office of Collective Bargaining did not notify the Union of revisions in the positions of DHO 1 and 2, in violation of 36.05. 553 The arbitrator did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that DAS arbitrarily evaluated the Highway Maintenance Worker 2 and 3 positions. He found that DAS considered all relevant fact and properly applied its standards of measurement to those facts and that the pay ranges assigned to the positions were proper. 766 The record did not support that the Union’s proposed pay range increase for Civil Rights Investigator/s. The Union was unable to convince the arbitrator that the six-point differential was supported by the testimony and evidence at the hearing. The Union did not convince the arbitrator that the Alternative Dispute Resolution Classification point factoring was a legitimate comparable in considering this matter. The arbitrator issued guidelines for computing salaries for new assignments. 781 There was limited bargaining history surrounding the disputed portion of Article 36/05. It was clear to the arbitrator that the Union was able to get a guarantee, agreed to by the employer, that a point factoring analysis and/or a market wage study could result in an increase to an existing
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 and 198: 25.08 because the union made excess
Page 199 and 200: 26.03 Work on Holidays No dispute e
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: ARTICLE 32 - TRAVEL 32.02 - Persona
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?