by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

opportunities violates the contract by going
outside the authority of the arbitrator. 491
(1992-94 contract)
Despite the finding that the Employer did not act
in bad faith, the overtime rights of each grievant
were breached when they were temporarily left
off the second shift roster. 491 (1992-94
contract)
Providing overtime opportunities within the
same purging period and for the same day and
shift rosters as those on which overtime is
missed can be consistent with the local overtime
agreement so long as it is not done in a way to
impose hardship. 491 (1992-94 contract)
There is no evidence that extra opportunities
within the purge period made up for the
grievant’s lost opportunities. 491 (1992-94
contract)
Pay is a particularly appropriate remedy here for
two reasons; 1) make up overtime in future
overtime purge periods would interfere with the
seniority and rotation rights to overtime of others
on the roster, some of whom who were not even
on the list during the earlier purge period; 2) The
makeup remedy is ineffective in a period when
much overtime is being offered because
grievants would have been able to work overtime
in any event. However, the Arbitrator cannot
estimate the number of hours each grievant
would have worked, and remands this to the
parties to agree on a figure for each grievant.
491 (1992-94 contract)
Management established a list of intermittent
employees to assist in ice and snow removal.
The Union alleged that this action violated
Article 13.07 of the contract because this action
would violate the contract’s overtime provisions.
The Arbitrator determined that the Union failed
to establish that management made the schedule
changes with the intent to avoid overtime. The
clear purpose was to improve ice and snow
removal. 596 (1994-97 contract)
Section 13.07 prohibits changing an employee's
posted regular schedule to avoid payment of
overtime. 627 (1997-2000 contract)
The distinction between being on stand-by and
being on call is that an employee on stand-by is
required to keep himself available for work. An
employee who is “on call” is not require to
respond when contacted by beeper, not is he
required to accept the work. In differentiating the
two statuses the important questions are (1) is the
employee free to use his time for his own benefit
and (2) are the call backs so frequent that
employee is not really free to us the time for his
own benefit. 100
The wording indicates that call-back pay was
meant to deal with unforeseen and/or emergency
situations. 100
Where the grievant had been called in to work
the hour prior to his shift, the arbitrator held that
13.08 requires the payment of 4 hours call back
pay. The past practice of paying overtime only if
the extra time worked abuts the regular shift was
irrelevant since the contract language was
unambiguous in requiring call back pay, the
language was different than the language in the
previous agreements under which the past
practice had occurred, and the employer had an
opportunity to negotiate language which would
have been more specific and narrowed the scope
of 13.08 but did not. 199
The Union asserted that the employer failed to
create a temporary CO position to escort
contractors outside the perimeter of the facility.
The employer contended that it was a past
practice to escort contractors within the
perimeter of the facility only. The arbitrator
found that the employer did not violate the
contract or the PAP agreement when it decided
not to create a temporary post. The arbitrator’s
ruling was based on: 1) the work was completely
performed outside of the perimeter of the facility
and 2) it was performed during a period when
there were no inmates present in the area of the
contractors. 884
The grievance was not dismissed as untimely.
The Arbitrator held that the grievant was
mistaken in her belief about what the grievable
event was. However, only work performed by
others during the ten days preceding her
grievance, which was work normally performed
by the grievant, would be compensable. The
Arbitrator found that the project work of
developing, testing, and implementing changes
to the processes and programs of registration
renewals was clearly outside the domain of the
Grievant’s normal work. Since the Union had
the burden to show by a preponderance of
evidence that the Grievant “normally performed
the work,” and/or the Arbitrator could only make