by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The grievant was charged with various alleged violations including unexcused tardiness, AWOL, and Failure of Good Behavior for not following the directions of a superior when he was told to take a midday lunch break before going to his next appointment. He chose not to take the break and to proceed to his next appointment. The arbitrator found that the initial determination by the employer that the AWOL and Failure of Good Behavior charges were “serious” was correct. However, these charges were ultimately found to have been improperly leveled against the grievant. The unexcused tardiness allegation was considered diminished in severity by the fact that some of the tardiness charges were simply in error, others were withdrawn and one was improper. The arbitrator found that the employer gave proper weight to the insubordination charge and that the remaining tardiness charge was recidivist in nature. He found that the charge of Exercising Poor Judgment was proper in this instance because the offense followed specific counseling regarding how to handle his lunch break. This charge was concededly less serious than insubordination and the 10-day suspension was reduced to an 8-day suspension. 809 The Arbitrator held that the proper resolution of this issue lies within Article 19. To hold that Article 19 is inapplicable to the grievance would require the Arbitrator to ignore the parties’ CBA and the plain meaning of Article 19. The plain language of Article 19 does not forbid multiple grievances over a similar infraction, but only limits the remedy to individual claims. The Arbitrator held that the Agreement does not guarantee that classifications will remain unchanged throughout the life of the agreement. The analysis sought to resolve each claim needs to occur in accord with Article 19 to determine the appropriate remedy. 979 The Union filed separate grievances from Guernsey, Fairfield, Licking, Knox, Perry, and Muskingum Counties that were consolidated into a single case. Implicit in the authority to schedule employees is the ability to alter the work schedule, subject to the limitations in Article 13.07 that the work schedule was not made solely to avoid the payment of overtime. The Arbitrator found that there was no evidence that the schedule change was motivated by a desire to avoid overtime; therefore, no violation 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 13.03—Meal Periods 13.04 – Rest Periods Section 13.07 applies to breaks during overtime periods while section 13.04 applies to breaks during the regular work hours. 35 13.05 – Reassignments The posting was found to be a position that should have been posted under Section 17.03 guidelines. The position was a full-time permanent position not a transfer or temporary reassignment. The transfer of the employee to fill a need permanent, full time is not a transfer. 303 The employer’s ability to implement scheduling changes is restricted by the “work area” language negotiated by the parties in the “memorandum of Understanding.” This was supported by the job groupings contained in the pick-a-post posting and the grievant’s job description. To disregard an employee’s pick-a-post selection by changing a work area would directly violate the negotiated work area provisos. Operational needs cannot be used to bypass the work area requirements contained in the Memorandum of Understanding. 448 (1992-94 contract) 13.06 – Report –in Locations Under 13.06, an employee is a field employee only when assigned field work; the 3rd sentence of the third paragraph only covers employees who are on 1000 hour assignments; thus employees who are neither currently under 1000 hour assignments nor currently assigned to field work are covered by the 4 th paragraph. 84
“In paragraph 3…the word “winter” does not, I suspect mean literally December 21st to March 20th, the calendar definition of Winter. Rather ‘in the winter’ means the non-construction season.”. 84 Reasonable definition. 134 Time clocks. 134 A sign-in/sign-out policy does not violate section 13.16 that bans the introduction of new time clocks. There is some indication in the opinion that this holding can be attacked by showing that the parties intend the words time clock to have a wider meaning. 134 Section 13.06 states that for tardiness, extenuating and mitigation circumstances shall be taken into consideration by the employer in dispensing discipline. 151 Management has the power under Article 5 to determine where the report-in location is. The employer must look at the nature of the work and must use a non-discriminatory rationale. Section 13.06 says that “employees who work from their homes, shall have their homes as a report-in location.” Presumably, if an employee works at or in her house, that would be her report-in location. However, that supplies and records are kept at home, that correspondence is received at home, or that the employee has no designated office and does “field” type at several locations, is not a sufficient basis to conclude that the employee works from home. If a substantial amount of the work in a person’s job description is done at home, the home may be designated as the report-in location. The common and logical concept of a report-in location is a place where the employee goes in order to report-in, ready to commence to perform his job. 160 Travel reimbursement is an entirely different issue than travel time and appears to be covered by 32.02. 160 In an Agreement of such length it may be tempting for one party or the other to adopt the view that some words or phrases are more significant than others. This view is mistaken. All terms of the agreement are to be given effect. This includes the explicit and clear understanding of the parties set forth in Section 13.06. The language of that section obligates the State to take into account “extenuating and mitigating circumstances” when considering the administration of discipline to employees who are tardy. 210 The state knew that the grievant’s son was ill and that she had recently suffered depression. In the circumstances of this case, it must be determined that the concepts of “extenuating and mitigating circumstances” set out in the agreement at 13.06 are applicable. The employer must not be permitted to disregard them as to do so would deprive them of their vitality. 210 Section 13.06 does not automatically require, but allows the employer to consider extenuating and mitigating circumstances. Proper consideration, however, necessitates that the Employer is cognizant of these circumstances at the time of the occurrences. 241 The Arbitrator’s conclusion n that the grievant was entitled to reimbursement for additional miles driven at the request of her employer was partially based on Article 13.06 of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. 564 (1994-97 contract) The arbitrator held that the Employer did not violate the Agreement by changing the grievant's report-in location because this did not constitute a permanent relocation. The report-in location of the grievant changed but his work location did not. As a Delivery Worker, the grievant's work position is not fixed. 630 (1997-2000 contract) The arbitrator stated that the terms of the CBA must govern when practice is in conflict with the terms of the Agreement. He concurred with Arbitrator Drotning’s opinion from a similar case (OCB Case No. 240) – presented by the employer – that in order for an individual’s home to be designated as the report in location, the employee would have to conduct a substantial part of his/her tasks at home. The determination of the amount of work performed at home must be on a case-by-case basis. The arbitrator concluded that the employer made that determination carefully and in good faith in this case. All of the grievants have assigned office space and by their own admission spend from 20% to 76% of their work hours in the office. The grievants did not perform a substantial part of their tasks at home .796 13.07 – Overtime An employee is on a “regular” schedule, for the purposes of 26.02 and 13.07, if the schedule is
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 and 22: the FR clothing during these five m
Page 23 and 24: 11.11 - Concern for Pregnancy Hazar
Page 25: of the contract occurred. Based upo
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?