by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

excused unpaid leave. The grievant was ordered to complete
an EAP and that another violation of the Drug-Free
Workplace policy will be just cause for removal. 429 (See
1992-1994 Contract)
The grievant was an investigator with the Department of
Commerce who had been suspended for 5 days for failing to
follow his itinerary for travel and filing incorrect expense
vouchers. The grievant’s itinerary indicated that he would
be in Toledo on a Friday, and he submitted expense
vouchers for the trip, however it was discovered that he
worked at home during the day in question. The arbitrator
found that the employer violated Section 24.04 by failing to
provide witness lists and documents and not answering the
grievant’s letters. Section 25.08 was not found to be
violated. The employer’s selection of predisciplinary
hearing officer was unwise because he had an interest in the
outcome and that the investigation was incomplete and
unfair. The arbitrator also found that the grievant’s itinerary
was a contemplated itinerary and that he had informed his
supervisor of schedule changes, however the grievant was
AWOL as there was no provision for working at home.
Disparate treatment was suspected by the arbitrator, who
also noted that the grievant exhibited a contemptuous
attitude towards management. The suspension was reduced
to a 1 day suspension. 430** (See 1992-1994 Contract)
The grievant was removed for unauthorized possession of
state property when marking tape worth$96.00 was found in
his trunk. The Columbus police discovered the tape, notified
the employer and found that the tape was missing from
storage. The arbitrator found that the late Step 3 response
was insufficient to warrant a reduced penalty. The arbitrator
also rejected the argument that the grievant obtained the
property by “trash picking” with permission, and stated that
the grievant was required to obtain consent to possess state
property. It was also found that while the employer’s rules
did not specifically address “trash picking”, the grievant was
on notice of the rule concerning possession of state
property. The grievance was denied. 432 (See 1992- 1994
Contract)
The grievant, a Therapeutic Program Worker, took $150 of
client money for a field trip with the clients. The grievant
was arrested en route and used the money for bail in order to
return to work for his next shift. The grievant was
questioned about the money before he could repay it; he
offered to repay it when he was paid on Friday, but failed to
offer payment until the next Monday. He was removed for
Failure of Good Behavior. While the employer was found to
have poorly communicated its rules concerning use of client
funds, the grievant was found to have notice of its
provisions. The arbitrator found that the grievant lacked the
intent to steal the money, however the grievant’s failure to
repay was not excused, thus just cause was found for
discipline. Because of the grievant’s prior disciplinary
record, removal was held commensurate with the offense
and the grievance was denied. 433 (See 1992-1994
Contract)
Article 43.04 of the contract provided some basis for finding
that the Employer should have extended ERI to OBES
employees indirectly affected by being bumped as a result
of Public Assistance Service Operations (PASO) being
abolished. 458 (1992-94 contract)
In this clarification, the arbitrator reversed his earlier
holding and denied the grievance entirely. The arbitrator
stated that because there was no language in the contract
which specifically defined ERI plans, the 1989-1991 did not
support the claim that people outside the PASO unit have a
contractual right to be offered the ERI. 458(A) (1992-94
contract)
The Employer did not have a duty to bargain under Ohio
Revised Code 4117.08(A) when it promulgated the new
grooming policy. 474 (1992-94 contract)
The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s
grooming policy is “reasonable” as required by Section
44.03 of the Contract. The Employer’s reasons that
conservative and uniform appearance is useful in controlling
inmates indicate that the policy is not arbitrary or capricious
in the sense that it was adopted without any basis other than
the prejudices of those responsible for the policy. 474
(1992-94 contract)
When the Grievant organized, planned, and promoted a
work stoppage she violated Rule 30B. The Arbitrator
believed she developed the plan and solicited the
participation of other employees. When the grievant
organized a work stoppage in the face of an approaching
winter storm, she engaged in “action that could harm or
potentially harm . . . a member of the general public” and
violated Rule 26. Grievant violated Rule 4 by interfering
with the investigation of the work stoppage. Testimony
from other witnesses showed that the grievant was not
truthful in her accounts of the events. The Arbitrator
believed the state conducted a full and fair investigation.
The Arbitrator did not believe the grievant was the object of
disparate treatment. Leaders of work actions are identified
and discharged, while employees playing a lesser role
receive less severe penalties. The Arbitrator did not believe
the state failed to use progressive discipline. In the case of
very serious misconduct an employer is not required to
follow the usual sequence of increasingly severe discipline.
Mitigating factors of long service, good evaluations, and
behaving in a professional manner in her work as a union
steward did not offset the seriousness of the Grievant’s
misconduct. The Arbitrator concluded that when the
Grievant organized a work stoppage in the face of major
winter storm she provided the state with just cause for her
discharge. 956
APPENDIX J
The grievant was not selected for a promotion. The
employer argued that the grievant did not fall within a