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.
ecommendations to the Governor and key staff.<br />
The decision to lift Wood County’s declaration<br />
was based upon the conditions existing within<br />
the geographic area of Wood County, not those<br />
of its neighbors. Wood County was removed<br />
from the list of counties designated for a snow<br />
emergency, while all surrounding counties were<br />
not. The facts indicate that reliable evidence<br />
existed for DPS to decide that lifting the ban on<br />
Wood County was appropriate. This is<br />
especially true when considering that the County<br />
had been downgraded to a Level 2 <strong>by</strong> its<br />
Sheriff’s Department, whereas all of the<br />
neighboring counties remained at a Level 3. The<br />
Arbitrator held that the decision <strong>by</strong> DPS in not<br />
extending the declaration of emergency beyond<br />
10:00 a.m. for Wood County was not arbitrary or<br />
capricious and was, in fact, supported <strong>by</strong><br />
reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.<br />
1000<br />
13.16 – Time Clocks<br />
Both the 1986 and 1989 contracts allow<br />
installation oftime clocks within ninety days of<br />
the contracts effective dates. The employer<br />
began installation of time clocks under the 1986<br />
contract, removed the system and then reinstalled<br />
an updated system nine months after the<br />
effective date of the 1989 contract. The<br />
arbitrator found that the triggering event for<br />
grieving was the first installation, but no<br />
grievance was filed at that time. The arbitrator<br />
found that the first installation was not a pretext<br />
to avoid violating the contract. The second<br />
system was found to be a replacement, not an<br />
addition, thus its installation did not violated the<br />
contract. 369<br />
ARTICLE 16 – SENIORITY<br />
A full time employee who was a member of the<br />
Ohio National Guard serving on duty one<br />
weekend per month and two weeks out of every<br />
year is entitled to one year prior service credit for<br />
each year of service for the purpose of<br />
computing the amount of his vacation leave<br />
pursuant to RC121.161, OAG 81-066. The<br />
Arbitrator found that the evidence presented and<br />
practice supported the Union’s position in this<br />
matter. State service credit is to be based on the<br />
initial date of enlistment in the National Guard.<br />
The Office of Collective Bargaining was to<br />
promptly notify all State agencies of the<br />
decision. The award was limited to the five<br />
grievants and applied to National Guard time<br />
only. 763<br />
The arbitrator determined that the Union could<br />
challenge the seniority of the successful<br />
applicant. He found that the <strong>Contract</strong> does not<br />
prohibit the challenge of seniority dates. He<br />
further stated that the employer cannot assume<br />
the position that an error should be preserved in<br />
the personnel records of employees if the error<br />
can be proved and that such a position would be<br />
“irrational and replete with potential for ratifying<br />
errors, to the possible detriment of employees.”<br />
The arbitrator found this matter to be full of<br />
errors, particularly the poor record keeping of the<br />
State. He envisioned serious consequences<br />
affecting the lives of employees and their<br />
families through the State’s inability to keep<br />
accurate records. The arbitrator stated that DAS<br />
believed the successful applicant had resigned,<br />
and that this was demonstrated <strong>by</strong> the fact that<br />
DAS sent the applicant a check for his leave<br />
balances along with a letter and form confirming<br />
his resignation. However, the arbitrator noted<br />
that the burden of proof rested on the shoulders<br />
of the Union and that the burden was not met.<br />
The arbitrator based his decision on the facts that<br />
(1) when the successful applicant received the<br />
leave balance check, he returned it, (2) when he<br />
was asked if he resigned from his DAS position,<br />
he stated that he didn’t, and (3) his leave<br />
balances were transferred to OIC. The arbitrator<br />
found that the successful applicant did not resign<br />
and that his seniority credits should continue<br />
without reduction or break upon his transfer<br />
from DAS to OIC .789<br />
The grievant was removed from MANCI as a<br />
CO and transferred to OSP. A settlement<br />
agreement was entered into <strong>by</strong> the parties on<br />
December 4, 2001 granting the transfer to OSP<br />
but also allowing for the grievant to carry his<br />
institutional seniority with him to OSP under<br />
paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement. The<br />
<strong>OCSEA</strong> then intervened declaring the settlement<br />
agreement violated Art. §16.01(B) - Institutional<br />
Seniority of the CBA. Subsequently, <strong>OCSEA</strong><br />
with OCB’s consent amended the settlement<br />
agreement to remove paragraph 5 (the<br />
transferring of institutional seniority). The<br />
arbitrator found that the failure to transfer the<br />
institutional seniority as proscribed in the<br />
settlement agreement did not violate the rights of<br />
the grievant since settlement agreements can<br />
only work within the confines of the CBA, in