by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

“similar or related series” as required by Article 17.04 of the
agreement. Prior to the arbitration the employer stipulated
that the grievant was in the “similar or related class series”
but was not “within the office, institution, or county where
the vacancy is listed” or “within the geographic district of
the Agency (see Appendix J) where the vacancy is located.”.
290
APPENDIX K
The grievant was conducting union business at the
Warrensville Developmental Center when a client pushed
her and injured her back. Her Occupational Injury Leave
was denied because she was conducting union business. A
settlement was reached concerning a grievance filed over
the employer’s refusal to pay, in which the employer agreed
to withdraw its objection to her OIL application based on
the fact that she was performing union business. Her
application was then denied because her injury was an
aggravation of a pre-existing condition. The arbitrator found
the grievance arbitrable because the settlement was
mistakenly entered into. The grievant believed that her OIL
would be approved while the employer believed that it was
merely removing one basis for denial. The arbitrator
interpreted Appendix K to vest discretion in DAS to make
OIL application decisions. The employees’ attending
physician, however, was found to have authority to release
employees back to work. Additionally, Appendix K was
found not to limit OIL to new injuries only. The grievant’s
OIL claim was ordered to be paid. 420
APPENDIX M
The Grievant reported late for work and then passed out on
the floor. An emergency squad was called and the Grievant
was taken to the nearest medical clinic. The Arbitrator held
that the Employer had legitimate grounds to order a
“reasonable suspicion” drug test based on the
circumstances, physical evidence, and the physical signs,
symptoms, and conduct of the Grievant. The Arbitrator
concluded that the Grievant, being subject to testing under
Sub-Section B of Appendix M, Section 3, was not afforded
a contractual guarantee of Union representation prior to
testing and was not arbitrarily or improperly disadvantaged
by the Employer’s failure to assure the presence of a Union
representative one hour before the test was actually
conducted. The Arbitrator found that ODOT, which is
required to comply with Federal law and regulations, did not
violate the Agreement when it required the Grievant to
submit to drug testing without the presence of a Union
representative. In addition, the Employer complied with the
Agreement when it discharged the Grievant after multiple
good-faith efforts to provide him with an opportunity to
agree to the terms of a last chance agreement. The Grievant
failed to accept any responsibility for his substance abuse.
The grievance was denied. 944
The Arbitrator found that the real issue is whether a past
practice of long standing has changed the “plain meaning”
of the language in Appendix M to the Collective Bargaining
Agreement. At Trumbull and other institutions the Ohio
State Patrol conducts reasonable suspicion testing for
alcohol abuse testing. The Union queried 27 institutions as
to their methods of handling the testing. Of the 25
institutions that responded 14 said they did not use the Ohio
State Patrol and 11 said they did This creates a past
practice that is not followed by a plurality of the institutions.
The Arbitrator found that the requirements for management
to make a past practice argument were not met. 988
A collection site should conduct a drug and/or alcohol test
for employees that have been injured and are being treated
for workers compensation injury only if the test is made:
A. at the request of the Employer when
there is reasonable cause to suspect
the employee may be intoxicated by
or under the influence of a controlled
substance not prescribed by his/her
doctor, or
B. at the request of a Licensed Physician
who is not employed by the
employer, or
C. at the request of Police Officer
pursuant to a traffic stop and not at
the request of the employee’s
employer.
In addition, the collection site will provide for tests
that are conducted at the request of the Employer.
An agency management designee will verbally
contact the collection site to coordinate the test and
the collection site should update its database to
reflect this. If a collection site is not verbally
contacted by an agency management designee, it
may not conduct the test and if it is done, it will be
invalid and the agency will not process payment
for the test. 1014
APPENDIX N
One-page decision. The arbitrator concluded that the
employer was not abolishing Pick-A-Post, but made a
necessary reorganization. The arbitrator ruled that no
further change in Pick-A-Post could be made at the
Circleville facility for the remaining the current
contract was in effect. 767
Management argued that the grievance was
considerably untimely, since the cause of action had
occurred fifteen years earlier, when a resident worker
started working as a short order cook. The grievance
was filed on the same day the cooks were ordered to