by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

language should be read in conjunction with language found elsewhere in Section 1.03; “supervisors shall only perform bargaining unit work to the extent that they have previously performed such work.” Arbitrator Keenan has determined in an earlier arbitration that one should look to the date that the contract became effective to determine if supervisors were doing bargaining unit work at the time. 156 The contract states that the state will make every reasonable effort to decrease the amount of bargaining unit work done by supervisors. This provision was violated where a supervisor position which included bargaining unit work in the classification specification, was vacant when the contract went into effect but was later filled by a supervisor who went on to do the bargaining unit work required by his classification specification. 156 The mutual intention of the parties will be violated where a non-bargaining unit person performs the tasks once done by members of the bargaining unit. 156 To the extent a supervisor did not do bargaining unit tasks on July 1, 1986 which he now does, the agreement has been violated by the employer. 156 Where the arbitrator had ruled that the employer had violated the contract by having supervisors perform bargaining unit work, the arbitrator declined to order the employer to assign the work to a specific bargaining unit member, stating that such a determination was “within the purview of the employer.” The arbitrator did order that supervisors stop doing the work. 156 Section 1.03 of the Agreement concerns itself with the integrity of the bargaining unit represented by the Union. In essence it provides that the employer may not act is such a fashion as to erode the bargaining unit by improperly removing work from bargaining unit employees. In this case a Mental Health Technician 1 was performing the duties of a Computer Operator 2. The employer improperly sanctioned employees working out of the bargaining unit. 280 The State may not erode the bargaining unit through the layoff procedure. Supervisors and other employees working out of class may not take over the laid off employee’s duties. 28 * The grievant was found to be working within his classification and whether a supervisor is present at work is a matter fort 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 mere job transfer does not equal a job abolishment; the position was not permanently eliminated. The employer also violated Section 1.03 of the Agreement by having a supervisor take over bargaining unit work. 340 The employer properly abolished the positions of three Hospital Aide Coordinator I’s. The work was distributed to other employees holding different positions. The fact that one HAC was working out of her classification prior to the abolishment reinforces the employer’s argument that this position was no longer required. The employer’s need for more direct care staff to follow a “normalization” program was legitimate and the abolishments were a way to efficiently pursue this goal. 340 The Ohio Penal Industries operated shops in which inmates work and bargaining unit employees supervise them. Prior to June 1989 three bargaining unit members and two management employees were assigned to the shop. One bargaining unit member then retired, but his vacancy was not posted but rather the duties were assumed by a management employee. The arbitrator rejected the employer’sargument that there had been no increase in bargaining unit work performed by management. It was found that despite general inmate supervision performed by management, the duties assumed after the bargaining unit member’s retirement were a material and substantial increase. This increase in the amount of bargaining unit work done by management was held to be a violation of Section 1.03, the grievance was sustained and the employer was ordered to cease performing bargaining unit work and post the vacancy in the shop. 406 1.04 (formerly 1.03 of the 1986 and 1989 contract) Bargaining Unit work 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) There was no evidence that supervisors wereperforming the renovation work at issue. In addition, while members of Bargaining Unit 6 could perform the tasks involved, such extensive renovations were not part of the normal workload of the Maintenance Department. The decision to allow a training opportunity for inmates involved the assignment of new work, not a transfer of work customarily done by the bargaining unit. 467 (1992-94 contract) The use of inmates to do the renovation work at issue in no way eroded the bargaining unit since bargaining unit 6 increased by almost 100 employees between 1986 and 1990. 467 (1992- 94 contract) The arbitrator rejected the Union’s argument that the tasks consolidated in the Research Staff position were bargaining unit work, violating section 1.03 of the contract. Those functions represented less than 10 percent of the supervisor’s yearly tasks. 476 (1992-94 contract) The Union provided no standard for the arbitrator to judge what is inherently bargaining unit work nor did the Union present any evidence that bargaining unit work had been usurped. 476 (1992-94 contract) The Secretary and Administrative Assistant Positions were abolished, but all of the work remained, and a substantial part of it was reassigned to non-union personnel, violating article 1.03 of the Agreement. 478 (1992-94 contract) Laying off five of nine psychiatric attendant coordinators left none scheduled for the third shift, further eroding the bargaining unit. 478 (1992-94 contract) The union was unable to show that the abolishment of the Administrative Assistant I position was done for the purpose of eroding the bargaining unit, that the work was being performed by those outside the bargaining unit, that bias or some other impermissible rationale was used, or that the budgetary assessment underlying the abolishment was flawed. 485 (1992-94 contract) Given the commitment of the State to utilizebargaining unit employees to perform the work they were performing when the contract came into effect, the second sentence of Article 39 places upon the State the burden of demonstrating to the Arbitrator that the contract with Miller Pipeline Company to do loop repair work met the contractual criteria of greater efficiency, economy, programmatic benefits and other related factors. The State was unable to satisfy the economy or efficiency standards established by the contract. 489 (1992-94 contract) Actual layoff of the bargaining unit members does not have to occur in order for an employer to be found to have compromised the integrity of the bargaining unit through subcontracting. In this situation, there exists the sort of passive reduction of bargaining unit. 489 (1992-94 contract) Supervisors are only allowed to perform bargaining unit work to the extent they previously performed it. Classification modernization differentiates between supervisor’s work and bargaining unit work. After the State differentiates through class mode, the exempt supervisor cannot perform the bargaining unit duties without violating section 1.03. A state hiring freeze does not justify a supervisor performing bargaining unit work. 498 (1992-94 contract) 1.05 - Bargaining Unit Work Management established a list of intermittent employees to assist in ice and snow removal. The Union asserted that this action violated Article 1.05 of the contract because this action was for the purpose of eroding the bargaining unit. The Arbitrator determined that the purpose of the change was merely to improve ice and snow removal, not to erode the bargaining unit. 596 (1994-97 contract) A supervisor rather than the Safety and Health Inspector conducted a safety training to a group involved in an Adopt-A-Highway program. The District had a practice in which bargaining unit members conducted the training. The arbitrator found that the practice did not guarantee the
Page 1: INDEX BY CONTRACT SECTION ARTICLE 1
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 and 28: “In paragraph 3…the word “win
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?