by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

workers and the driving public in jeopardy. The grievant should have contacted her supervisor. She could have moved her location to under an overpass or moved closer to the work site. The responsibilities of a flagger played a critical role in the arbitrator’s determination of the grievant’s negligence. 304 The Union’s medical defense was rejected. The employer required the grievant to be clean shaven to properly wear a respirator. The grievant’s skin condition of pseudo folliculitis barbae can, as shown by medical testimony be managed by shaving with barber clippers instead of a razor. This manner of shaving would have been acceptable to the State. The fact that the grievant passed a respirator fit test does not have a great deal of bearing on this case. The test is conducted in the most ideal conditions. The manufacture of the respirator and OSHA advise against bearded employees using a respirator. The requirement by the State that the grievant be clean shaven is a reasonable one. 319 The grievant was removed for insubordination for failing to shave his beard to wear a respirator. The OSHA recommendation that the grievant be reinstated is entitled to lilt weight. The grievance procedure is the exclusive method for resolving this dispute. OSHA did not conduct the sort of evidentiary hearing required by the elementary considerations of due process. The conclusion of he Director of the Industrial Relations is not controlling and does not serve to bind the arbitrator:. 319 There was a requisite just cause for the grievant’s removal. The grievant would not shave his beard. The rule that employees that wear respirators in asbestos filled areas must be clean shaven in reasonable. The employer progressively disciplined the grievant for insubordination, finally resulting in discharge. 319 11.05 – Communicable Diseases Health physicists were assigned on a rotating basis to respond to incidents, including those at landfills. The Grievant sought pre-exposure vaccinations and protective gear for onsite inspections. OSHA guidelines state that vaccine is to be offered to employees who have occupational exposure to the hepatitis B virus. Occupational exposure has the same definition as in the OSHA guidelines. The expert witness, a PERRP program administrator, reviewed the Bureau’s written policy and the duties of health physicists and testified that these employees were not reasonably expected to have contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials and were not required to have preexposure vaccinations. The incident of falling in the muck at the landfill, as related by the grievant, was an accident for which the right to post-exposure evaluation and treatment was created. The Arbitrator concluded that Health Physicists did not have “occupational exposure” and therefore were not entitled to hepatitis B vaccine pre-exposure. The grievance was denied. 962 11.09 – Asbestos (1989-1991 contract) The Union’s medical defense was rejected. The employer required the grievant to be clean shaven to properly wear a respirator. The grievant’s skin condition of pseudo folliculitis barbae can, as shown by medical testimony be managed by shaving with barber clippers instead of a razor. This manner of shaving would have been acceptable to the State. The fact that the grievant passed a respirator fit test does not have a great deal of bearing on this case. The test is conducted in the most ideal conditions. The manufacture of the respirator and OSHA advise against bearded employees using a respirator. The requirement by the State that the grievant be clean shaven is a reasonable one. 319 The grievant was removed for insubordination for failing to shave his beard to wear a respirator. The OSHA recommendation that the grievant be reinstated is entitled to little weight. The grievance procedure is the exclusive method for resolving this dispute. OSHA did not conduct the sort of evidentiary hearing required by the elementary considerations of due process. The conclusion of he Director of the Industrial Relations is not controlling and does not serve to bind the arbitrator. 319 There was a requisite just cause for the grievant’s removal. The grievant would not shave his beard. The rule that employees that wear respirators in asbestos filled areas must be clean-shaven in reasonable. The employer progressively disciplined the grievant for insubordination, finally resulting in discharge. 319
11.11 – Concern for Pregnancy Hazards The grievant was a visitation/utility officer on second shift at the facility. She became pregnant and present her employer with a physician’s statement stating so and indicating her due date. He also advised her not to lift more than ten to fifteen pounds for the duration of her pregnancy. She was told by her employer she would not be allowed to work due to her lifting restrictions. The Union could not agree to her displacing other officers in violation of the Pick-A-Post Agreement and the warden could not agree to splitting her job between the visiting hall and the entrance building because the possibility of having to use force against an inmate or visitor would not be incompliance with her weighlifting limitations. She was told to apply disability. The arbitrator found that the employer made a good faith effort to accommodate the grievant’s restrictions. A “good faith” effort is all that is required by the contract. The parties met and both rejected the proposals submitted. Arbitrator noted that he grievant also submitted her charges to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the U.S. EEOC. OCRC took jurisdiction and found that that employer’s actions were not due the grievant’s pregnancy, but to her restrictions. The arbitrator concurred, stating that the grievant received her answer to Title VII issue from OCRC. 871 The grievant notified her employer that she was pregnant and applied for accommodation to continue working. Subsequent statements from her physician stated that due to complications the grievant could not lift more than 20 pounds, was unable to run ¾ miles and could not break up fights. Her application for accommodation was denied. She applied for and received disability benefits. The Union presented evidence at arbitration that two other COs at Richland had been accommodated by the employer during pregnancy. The employer could not explain why they received accommodations and the grievant did not. The arbitrator stated, “If the employer can demonstrate it made the requisite ‘good faith effort to provide alternative, comparable work and equal pay to a pregnant employee upon a doctor’s recommendation’ (Sec. 11.11) it will have satisfied its obligation under the Agreement. As the record does not demonstrate that occurred in this instance the grievance must be sustained.” 897 The Arbitrator found that the Employer did not violate Section 11.11 because the Employer engaged in a good faith effort to provide alternative comparable work and equal pay to the two pregnant Grievants. On four of five scheduled work days the employees would work “relief” in “non-contact” posts. On the fifth day the Union requested that the two employees be assigned an “extra” or “ghost” post or be permitted to take the day off and use accrued leave for coverage purposes. However, the Warden placed the Union on notice that the institution could no longer have pregnant employees assigned to posts as extras. Certain posts were properly rejected based on the Grievants’ doctor recommendations. The Union’s proposals would have resulted in “ghost posts.” The Grievants would have worked in positions at the expense of other established posts. Also, unapproved “ghost posts” would violate the spirit of the local Pick-A-Post agreement. Proposed uses of accrued leave balances, personal leave, and sick leave failed. Nothing in the record indicated the Grievants had sufficient leave balances available to cover one day off per week. In addition, if the Grievants were allowed to take vacation time on dates previously selected, the Employer would be violating a mutually agreed to number of vacation days made available for bid. Other correction officers’ seniority rights would be violated if vacations were preferentially granted to pregnant employees. Section 27.02 entitles an employee to four personal leave days each year; however those four days could not possibly cover the entire pregnancy period. Section 29.02 grants sick leave to employees “unable to work because of sickness or injury.” A pregnancy cannot be viewed as an “illness or injury.” 941 ARTICLE 13 - WORK WEEK, SCHEDULES AND OVERTIME Article 25 does not prevent an arbitrator from enforcing Article 13. 55 The Arbitrator held that certain employees should receive their full day’s pay or have their leave balances restored. The Union was to provide the Employer with a list of employees who met the criteria the Arbitrator set forth. This arbitration concerned a series of grievances filed regarding the Power Outage that occurred
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: the FR clothing during these five m
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 and 208:
ARTICLE 32 - TRAVEL 32.02 - Persona
Page 209 and 210:
ARTICLE 36 - WAGES 36.02 - General
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?