by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

she was evaluated below average in several categories.
Lastly, a paddle had been hanging in the supervisor’s lounge
with the words “Union Buster” written on it. The arbitrator
found that the grievant may have dozed off, but that the
employer’s anti-union animus was the cause for the
suspension. The paddle in the lounge was evidence of this
and the employer had demonstrated reckless disregard for
union relations. The arbitrator held that
the employer failed to properly apply its rules, thus, there
was no just cause for the 10 day suspension. The discipline
was reduced to a 1 day suspension. 400 (See 1992-1994
Contract)
The grievant was removed for misuse of his position for
personal gain after his supervisor noticed that the grievant,
an investigator for the bureau of Employment Services, had
received an excessive number of personal telephone calls
from a private investigator. The Ohio Highway Patrol
conducted an investigation in which the supervisor turned
over 130-150 notes from the grievant’s work area and it
was discovered that the grievant had disclosed information
to three private individuals, one of whom admitted paying
the grievant. The arbitrator found that the employer proved
that the grievant violated Ohio Revised Code section
4141.21 by disclosing confidential information for personal
gain. The agency policy for this violation calls for removal.
The employer’s evidence was uncontroverted and consisted
of the investigating patrolman/s testimony, transcribed
interviews of those who received the information, and the
grievant’s supervisor’s testimony. The grievant’s 13 years
seniority was an insufficient mitigating circumstance and
the grievance was denied. 408 (See 1992-1994Contract)
The grievant was a Therapeutic Program Worker who was
removed for abusing a patient by restraining him in a
manner not provided for in the client’s restraint program.
The client was acting out while eating and the grievant
either choked or placed the client in abear hug. The
arbitrator found that the employer proved that the grievant
abused the client. The grievant was shown to have engaged
in acts inconsistent with clients’ human rights by
restraining the client in a way not permitted by the client’s
program or the agency’s policies. The testimony of the
employer’s witnesses was found to be more credible than
that of the grievant, and there was no evidence of coercion
by the employer or collusion among the witnesses. The
arbitrator recognized that if abuse was proven, then no
authority exists to reduce the penalty of removal, thus the
grievance was denied. 409 (See 1992-1994 Contract)
The grievant took a magnetic tape containing public
information home, which was against agency rules. She
intended to return the tape but it became lost, and she was
charged with theft of state property. The tape was later
recovered by the Highway Patrol during an unrelated
investigation. The grievant was transferred to another
position without loss of pay or reduction in rank and
suspended for 30 days. The arbitrator held that the employer
failed to prove that the grievant intended to steal the tape
(Hurst arbitration test applied) rather than borrow it. Taking
the tape home without authorization was found to be a
violation of the employers’ rules. The employer was found
not to have applied double jeopardy to the grievant as only
one disciplinary proceeding had been brought and the
transfer was found not to be disciplinary in nature. The 30
day suspension was found not to be reasonably related to the
offense, nor corrective and was reduced to a 1 day
suspension with full back pay for the remaining 29 days.
417 (See 1992-1994 Contract)
The grievant was an employee of the Lottery Commission
who was removed for theft. The agency’s rules prohibit
commission employees from receiving lottery prizes,
however the grievant admitted redeeming lottery tickets, but
not to receiving notice of the rule. The arbitrator noted that
while the employer may have suspected the grievant of
stealing the tickets, there was no evidence supporting that
suspicion and it cannot be a basis for discipline. The
arbitrator found that the grievant did redeem lottery coupons
in violation of the employer’s rule and Ohio Revised Code
section 3770.07(A) but that he had no notice of the
prohibition either through counseling or orientation. The
grievant was reinstated without back pay but with no loss of
seniority. 425 (See 1992-1994 Contract)
The grievant was removed after 13 years service from her
position with the Bureau of Rehabilitation Services for
unapproved absence, conviction of a drug charge, and
failure to report the drug charge as required by the state’s
Drug-Free Workplace policy. The Bureau is funded by the
federal government and is subject to the Drug-Free
Workplace Act of 1988. The grievant had a history of
alcohol problems. She was also involved with a co-worker
who, after the relationship ended, began to harass her at
work. She filed charges with the EEOC and entered an EAP.
The former boyfriend called the State Highway Patrol and
informed them of the grievant’s drug use on state property.
An investigation revealed drugs and paraphernalia in her
car on state property and she plead guilty to Drug Abuse.
She became depressed and took excessive amounts of her
prescription drugs and missed 2 days of work. She was
admitted into the drug treatment unit of a hospital for 2
weeks. She was on approved leave for the hospital stay, but
the previous 2 days were not approved and the agency
sought removal. The arbitrator found that while the
employer’s rules were reasonable, their application to this
grievant was not. The Drug-Free Workplace policy does not
call for removal for a first offense. The employer’s federal
funding was not found to be threatened by the grievant’s
behavior. The grievant was found to be not guilty of
dishonesty for not reporting her drug conviction because
she was following the advice of her attorney who told her
that she had no criminal record. The arbitrator noted that the
grievant must be responsible for her absenteeism, however
the employer was found to have failed to consider
mitigating circumstances present, possessed an
unwillingness to investigate, and to have acted punitively by
removing the grievant. The grievant’s removal was reduced
to a 10 day suspension with back pay, benefits, and
seniority, less normal deductions and interim earnings. The
record of her two day absence was ordered changed to an