by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

eport to the new location. The Arbitrator held that the
grievance was timely. The Arbitrator found there was
insufficient evidence that the reason for giving the Veterans
Hall Kitchen cooking duties to the Ohio Veterans Home
Resident Workers and changing the work area of the union
cooks to Secrest Kitchen was to erode the bargaining unit.
Members of the bargaining unit were not displaced. There
were no layoffs. Members were not deprived of jobs that
were normally available to them. It appears that the only
change was the work assignment. There was no evidence of
any deprivation of any economic benefit to membership.
The Arbitrator held that the 1994 grievance settlement had
not been violated. No bad faith was established. Further,
the short order grilling was de minis in nature when
compared to production quantity work performed by the
union cooks. The subcontracting in these circumstances had
little or no effect on the bargaining unit, and was
permissible under Article 39.01. 1009
The Union asserted that the employer failed to create a
temporary CO position to escort contractors outside the
perimeter of the facility. The employer contended that it
was a past practice to escort contractors within the perimeter
of the facility only. The arbitrator found that the employer
did not violate the contract or the PAP agreement when it
decided not to create a temporary post. The arbitrator’s
ruling was based on: 1) the work was completely performed
outside of the perimeter of the facility and 2) it was
performed during a period when there were no inmates
present in the area of the contractors. 884
APPENDIX Q
The arbitrator found that the employer did not violate
Appendix Q-Correction Officer Pick-A-Post. The employer
was able to demonstrate through evidence and testimony
that a series of unforeseen circumstances existed generated
by the desired closing of the Lima Correctional Institution.
As a Consequence, these circumstances provided a valid
contractual basis for the changes in the Pick-A-Post
agreements. He noted that a determination regarding the
propriety of Appendix Q, B Pick-A-Post need not be
reached. 860
This grievance rested on whether the employer properly
applied the section to the work scheduling of one type of
established term appointments – the type entitled
“established term regular appointment” (ETR). The concept
of term appointments in Appendix came about via an MOU
which settled a previous statewide grievance challenging the
employer’s extensive use of non-bargaining unit employees
to supplement the bargaining unit workforce. It was
stipulated that the MOU would expire with the contract that
was it was under. The arbitrator concluded that the
employer was obligated during the peak periods to work
ETRs in accordance with the standard set forth n the MOU.
However, the work standard did not obligate the employer
to work all ETRs for 40 hours per week without exception
during the peak periods. The work standard was a
contractually mandated norm for the employer during these
peak periods. The arbitrator stated that he record showed
that the employer met the standard during the declared peak
period. At a management meeting, the individual who
declared the peak period stated that the ETRs would
normally be scheduled for 40 hours. A manage testified at
arbitration that he was told he should attempt to work the
ETRs 40 hours per week, and that he should make every
effort to schedule the ETRs on a 40-hour per week basis.
864