by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
predictable. Thus, even a rotating schedule can<br />
be a regular schedule. 93<br />
Section 13.07 applies to breaks during overtime<br />
periods while section 13.04 applies to breaks<br />
during regular work hours. 135<br />
Payment for unapproved overtime is not<br />
mandated <strong>by</strong> the agreement and would run<br />
counter to existing policy and provisions<br />
contained in the agreement. 146<br />
Section 13.07 allows the implementation of<br />
overtime arrangements <strong>by</strong> the employer, and<br />
equally anticipates an authorization requirement.<br />
Both of these conditions were not merely<br />
negotiated for the traditional overtime<br />
equalization situation. They, more specifically,<br />
are contained in the paragraph dealing with both<br />
overtime situations, and therefore, must be<br />
applied consistently whether one operates under<br />
the traditional or non-traditional paradigm. 146<br />
The employer retains the right to manage its<br />
operation in a manner which is consistent with<br />
the various provisions set forth in the agreement.<br />
The inherent rights of management include<br />
scheduling work, assigning employees and<br />
operating efficiently. Management’s authority in<br />
this regard has been recognized <strong>by</strong> many<br />
arbitrators, including Arbitrator Pincus in the<br />
Kinney decision. Arbitrator Pincus held that the<br />
State has the right to establish work schedules<br />
and to alter original work schedules based upon<br />
operational needs. This arbitrator agrees and is of<br />
the further opinion that Article 13 suggests that<br />
the parties anticipated that work schedules would<br />
be changed. Section 13.07 restricts<br />
management’s right to change a work schedule<br />
when it can be shown that the schedule was<br />
arbitrarily changed to avoid overtime, as in the<br />
Holton case. The wording of §13.07, paragraph 7<br />
further suggests that the employer may change<br />
employees’ schedules for operational needs. 169<br />
Section 13.01 defines the work week in a manner<br />
which allows for a flexibility in scheduling; this<br />
suggests that work shall be scheduled in order to<br />
meet operational needs. When this provision is<br />
read in conjunction with §13.07, paragraph 7, it<br />
is clear that management may establish and alter<br />
schedules as long as the primary intent is not<br />
avoidance of overtime. §13.07 does not<br />
guarantee a certain amount of overtime nor does<br />
it prevent management from implementing<br />
schedule changes based on operational<br />
requirements, even though those changes may<br />
result in less available overtime. 169<br />
The arbitrator held that there was operational<br />
need justifying a schedule change where: (1) the<br />
employees whose schedule was changed from<br />
day to night shift performed the duties in their<br />
position descriptions and their absence from the<br />
day shift did not result in inefficiency between<br />
the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. (2)<br />
Response time to night time hazardous road<br />
conditions caused <strong>by</strong> storms was cut<br />
significantly. (3) The night workers could better<br />
monitor the condition of the roads for ODOT. (4)<br />
Overtime was still offered to both day and night<br />
Employees. 169<br />
A reduction in the total number of available<br />
overtime hours was not evidence that avoidance<br />
of overtime was intended. 169<br />
That ODOT had changed the schedule in one<br />
county to include night patrol and had not done<br />
so in another county does not prove that night<br />
patrol was not an operational need for the<br />
schedule change in the former county where<br />
more people commute through the county in the<br />
morning. 169<br />
The employer’s overtime policy stated that when<br />
one volunteered to work overtime, normal<br />
attendance rules would apply. Section 13.07<br />
which concerns overtime does not preclude the<br />
application of other relevant disciplinary policies<br />
when an employee fails to fulfill an overtime<br />
obligation and engages in collateral misconduct.<br />
If the parties had intended such a result, the<br />
language in 13.07 would have said so explicitly.<br />
264<br />
The lieutenant referred to the escape as an<br />
emergency and the superiors ratified his<br />
authority. Overtime rules can only be violated<br />
when a Section 13.15 emergency exists. By<br />
failing to make the employees whole for the<br />
contract violation, the employer ratified the<br />
lieutenant’s words. 299<br />
The employer changed the grievant’s work<br />
schedule in 1987 during the golf season (the<br />
grievant is a Golf Course Worker) from a<br />
Monday through Friday work week to a Tuesday<br />
through Saturday work week. The Union argued<br />
that this was a violation of Section 13.07 of the<br />
Agreement which prohibits the State form<br />
changing an employer’s work schedule to avoid