by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

predictable. Thus, even a rotating schedule can be a regular schedule. 93 Section 13.07 applies to breaks during overtime periods while section 13.04 applies to breaks during regular work hours. 135 Payment for unapproved overtime is not mandated by the agreement and would run counter to existing policy and provisions contained in the agreement. 146 Section 13.07 allows the implementation of overtime arrangements by the employer, and equally anticipates an authorization requirement. Both of these conditions were not merely negotiated for the traditional overtime equalization situation. They, more specifically, are contained in the paragraph dealing with both overtime situations, and therefore, must be applied consistently whether one operates under the traditional or non-traditional paradigm. 146 The employer retains the right to manage its operation in a manner which is consistent with the various provisions set forth in the agreement. The inherent rights of management include scheduling work, assigning employees and operating efficiently. Management’s authority in this regard has been recognized by many arbitrators, including Arbitrator Pincus in the Kinney decision. Arbitrator Pincus held that the State has the right to establish work schedules and to alter original work schedules based upon operational needs. This arbitrator agrees and is of the further opinion that Article 13 suggests that the parties anticipated that work schedules would be changed. Section 13.07 restricts management’s right to change a work schedule when it can be shown that the schedule was arbitrarily changed to avoid overtime, as in the Holton case. The wording of §13.07, paragraph 7 further suggests that the employer may change employees’ schedules for operational needs. 169 Section 13.01 defines the work week in a manner which allows for a flexibility in scheduling; this suggests that work shall be scheduled in order to meet operational needs. When this provision is read in conjunction with §13.07, paragraph 7, it is clear that management may establish and alter schedules as long as the primary intent is not avoidance of overtime. §13.07 does not guarantee a certain amount of overtime nor does it prevent management from implementing schedule changes based on operational requirements, even though those changes may result in less available overtime. 169 The arbitrator held that there was operational need justifying a schedule change where: (1) the employees whose schedule was changed from day to night shift performed the duties in their position descriptions and their absence from the day shift did not result in inefficiency between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. (2) Response time to night time hazardous road conditions caused by storms was cut significantly. (3) The night workers could better monitor the condition of the roads for ODOT. (4) Overtime was still offered to both day and night Employees. 169 A reduction in the total number of available overtime hours was not evidence that avoidance of overtime was intended. 169 That ODOT had changed the schedule in one county to include night patrol and had not done so in another county does not prove that night patrol was not an operational need for the schedule change in the former county where more people commute through the county in the morning. 169 The employer’s overtime policy stated that when one volunteered to work overtime, normal attendance rules would apply. Section 13.07 which concerns overtime does not preclude the application of other relevant disciplinary policies when an employee fails to fulfill an overtime obligation and engages in collateral misconduct. If the parties had intended such a result, the language in 13.07 would have said so explicitly. 264 The lieutenant referred to the escape as an emergency and the superiors ratified his authority. Overtime rules can only be violated when a Section 13.15 emergency exists. By failing to make the employees whole for the contract violation, the employer ratified the lieutenant’s words. 299 The employer changed the grievant’s work schedule in 1987 during the golf season (the grievant is a Golf Course Worker) from a Monday through Friday work week to a Tuesday through Saturday work week. The Union argued that this was a violation of Section 13.07 of the Agreement which prohibits the State form changing an employer’s work schedule to avoid
overtime. The arbitrator found that the State did not violate Section 13.07. When the State placed the grievant on a Monday – Friday schedule in the years before the Agreement it did not create a practice which would bind it forevermore. The parties were confronted with a changed environment. For the first time in 1987 they were operating under a collective bargaining agreement. One event or action does not serve to bind the employer or the Union. It takes constant repetition to create past practice. 303 The grievant was found to be working within his classification and whether a supervisor is present at work is a matter for the employer to determine. The presence or absence of a supervisor does not go to the issue of whether the employer is rescheduling the grievant to avoid overtime. 303 A “regular” schedule as contemplated by Section 13.07 of the Agreement is not limited to Monday – Friday. In the case where the grievant works six months on a Monday – Friday schedule and six months on a Tuesday – Saturday schedule, neither schedule is more irregular then the other. The standard work week must be forty hours followed by two consecutive days off. Section 13.07 is instructive in its silence; a standard work week does not necessarily mean a Monday -Friday schedule. 303 The Union bears the burden to demonstrate that the State staffed the machine so as to avoid the payment of overtime. The State deciding to use that particular machine is permissible under the Management Rights section of the Agreement, Article 5 it was not shown that the operation of this machine was done to avoid overtime pay to employees. Section 13.07 is inapplicable since the employer did not change the work schedules. The employees themselves Volunteered. 329 That some tasks by the grievants were left undone is insufficient to determine the outcome of this dispute. The Union charged that the State was rescheduling employees to avoid payment of overtime. Managers can allocate scarce resources. This case did not involve the employees working out of their classification or work area. The fact that another county chose to allow employees to work overtime does not control the managerial actions of the agency. 329 Since the employees were not eligible for pay beyond their regular hours under §37.04 they are not eligible for overtime under §13.07 of the Agreement. 345 The case was determined to be arbitrable since the notifying event was the purging of the overtime rosters which caused the grievant to be aware that any inequity in the past overtime distribution could not be rectified through additional overtime opportunities. Until the grievant saw the posting he relied on assurances by management that his overtime would be equalized with the other employees. The arbitrator found that she was restricted to considering only those overtime opportunities which had occurred within ten days prior to the filing of the grievance. Without the initiation of formal grievances during the period complained of, the recovery of lost overtime cannot be permitted, especially in view of the fact that the agreement to purge the overtime roster was a joint decision. 365 The grievant was a Psychiatric Attendant who had been mandated to work overtime. The grievant notified the employer that he would be unable to work over because he had to meet his children’s school bus and was unable to find a substitute, and he signed out at his normal time. The grievant had two prior suspensions for failure to work mandatory overtime. Ordinarily, the “work now grieve later” doctrine applies to such situations, however the arbitrator noted that certain situation alter that policy. The grievant gave a legitimate reason for refusing the overtime and the employer was found to have abused its discretion in not finding a substitute. The grievant was found to have a history of insubordination and inability to arrange alternate child care. Upon a balancing of the parties’ actions, the arbitrator held that there was no just cause for removal, but reduced the penalty to a 60 day suspension. 415 Section 1.03 is intended to give bargaining unit employees first crack at overtime before work goes to non-bargaining unit employees, but in this case, one cannot conclude that inmates were non-bargaining unit employees. Furthermore, since the work was carried out during the regular work day. Unit 6 employees did not lose work or overtime opportunities. 467 (1992-94 contract) The Arbitrator rejected the State’s argument that awarding back pay for missed overtime
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 and 26: of the contract occurred. Based upo
Page 27: “In paragraph 3…the word “win
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?