by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

of the contract occurred. Based upon the
weather forecast known to the Employer on
February 12, 2007 justifiable reasons existed to
roll into 12 hour shifts. Prior notification under
Article 13.02 was not required. No entitlement
existed that the employees were guaranteed 16-
hour shifts under a snow/ice declaration. The
Employer’s conduct did not violate Section
13.07(2)’s Agency specific language. The snow
storm was a short term operational need. To
conclude that a snow storm is not a short term
need but that rain over an extended period of
time is, would be nonsensical. The record
consisted of over 500 pages of exhibits and three
days of hearing. That record failed to indicate
that the Employer violated the parties’
agreement. 997
13.02 – Work Schedules
Applies only if work schedule is ordinarily
determined by parties other than employer. 32
Generally, many arbitrators have recognized that
unless the agreement says otherwise, the right to
schedule overtime remains in management. This
“right” of management can be limited if the
union can prove that scheduling changes have
been implemented to avoid the payment of
overtime. Article 5 and ORC 4117.08(c) clearly
provide the employer with the right to determine
matters of inherent managerial policy; maintain
and improve the efficiency of operations; and to
schedule employees. Thus, these provisions
allow employer to alter work schedules to
improve efficiency based on operational needs.
Section 13.01 and 13.02 underscore the
employer’s ability to schedule work. Section
13.02 defines work schedules as “an employee’s
assigned shift.” Obviously, if the employer can
make work schedule assignments, the employer
can also establish work schedules. 149
This decision deals with the definition of a work
area. The definition of a work area governs the
rights of employees to transfer and rotate within
the work areas. The case is limited to direct care
employees. These employees work in State
institutions and are employed in full-time,
custodial and security positions. The agencies
covered by this decision are Rehabilitation and
Corrections; Youth Services; Mental Health and
Mental Retardation/Developmental Disabilities;
Ohio Veterans Home; and the Ohio Veterans
Children’s Home. The Union and the State each
submitted proposals to Mr. Elliot Goldstein, the
arbitrator. The Union argued for strict seniority
bidding, for work selection in the smallest
feasible unit, post, ward or cottage, with
unlimited selection rights and no limitations on
the “ripple effect.” The ripple effect is the
bumping and confusion caused by constant
reassignments. This proposal is feasible and is
working in other AFSCME represented
institutions and facilities. Goldstein Decision
The state argued that the Union’s proposal was
impossible. The Union agreed to negotiate on
several points. The Union could establish a
waiting period before seniority can be exercised,
limit the frequency of exercising seniority rights,
and limit the number of times an employer could
be reassigned. Goldstein Decision
The arbitrator awarded the following:
1. With reference to Rehabilitations and
Corrections, a rotation to occur every six
months. There will be four different types of
work to be defined by the parties and the rotation
shall include one job assignment in each over the
course of two years.
2. In the rest of the Agencies mentioned above,
the work areas is defined as the smallest
subdivision where an employee performs his or
her assigned work on a regular basis. Seniority is
to be one of the criteria utilized in the selection
of work area; other criteria are skills and abilities
and the professional needs of the facility. If the
latter two factors are equal, seniority shall
control. Employees are limited to exercising their
right to select a post to twice in one year. Job
reassignments resulting from a selection are
limited to two in number. Goldstein Decision
The arbitrator rejected the employer’s argument
that section 13.02 gives Management the
authority to deny personal leave under section
27.04. Since section 13.02 was so hotly
contested, the parties would have been very
careful to say exactly what they meant in
drafting the language. There is no express
language in the contract stating that section
13.02 would override 27.04. 475 (1992-94
contract)
The Employer has the right to limit the number
of persons scheduled to work at any one time
pursuant to Section 13.02. Also, the Employer
may alter work schedules to improve efficiencies
based upon operational need under Article 5.
627 (1997 – 2000 contract)