by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecommendations to the Governor and key staff. The decision to lift Wood County’s declaration was based upon the conditions existing within the geographic area of Wood County, not those of its neighbors. Wood County was removed from the list of counties designated for a snow emergency, while all surrounding counties were not. The facts indicate that reliable evidence existed for DPS to decide that lifting the ban on Wood County was appropriate. This is especially true when considering that the County had been downgraded to a Level 2 by its Sheriff’s Department, whereas all of the neighboring counties remained at a Level 3. The Arbitrator held that the decision by DPS in not extending the declaration of emergency beyond 10:00 a.m. for Wood County was not arbitrary or capricious and was, in fact, supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. 1000 13.16 – Time Clocks Both the 1986 and 1989 contracts allow installation oftime clocks within ninety days of the contracts effective dates. The employer began installation of time clocks under the 1986 contract, removed the system and then reinstalled an updated system nine months after the effective date of the 1989 contract. The arbitrator found that the triggering event for grieving was the first installation, but no grievance was filed at that time. The arbitrator found that the first installation was not a pretext to avoid violating the contract. The second system was found to be a replacement, not an addition, thus its installation did not violated the contract. 369 ARTICLE 16 – SENIORITY A full time employee who was a member of the Ohio National Guard serving on duty one weekend per month and two weeks out of every year is entitled to one year prior service credit for each year of service for the purpose of computing the amount of his vacation leave pursuant to RC121.161, OAG 81-066. The Arbitrator found that the evidence presented and practice supported the Union’s position in this matter. State service credit is to be based on the initial date of enlistment in the National Guard. The Office of Collective Bargaining was to promptly notify all State agencies of the decision. The award was limited to the five grievants and applied to National Guard time only. 763 The arbitrator determined that the Union could challenge the seniority of the successful applicant. He found that the Contract does not prohibit the challenge of seniority dates. He further stated that the employer cannot assume the position that an error should be preserved in the personnel records of employees if the error can be proved and that such a position would be “irrational and replete with potential for ratifying errors, to the possible detriment of employees.” The arbitrator found this matter to be full of errors, particularly the poor record keeping of the State. He envisioned serious consequences affecting the lives of employees and their families through the State’s inability to keep accurate records. The arbitrator stated that DAS believed the successful applicant had resigned, and that this was demonstrated by the fact that DAS sent the applicant a check for his leave balances along with a letter and form confirming his resignation. However, the arbitrator noted that the burden of proof rested on the shoulders of the Union and that the burden was not met. The arbitrator based his decision on the facts that (1) when the successful applicant received the leave balance check, he returned it, (2) when he was asked if he resigned from his DAS position, he stated that he didn’t, and (3) his leave balances were transferred to OIC. The arbitrator found that the successful applicant did not resign and that his seniority credits should continue without reduction or break upon his transfer from DAS to OIC .789 The grievant was removed from MANCI as a CO and transferred to OSP. A settlement agreement was entered into by the parties on December 4, 2001 granting the transfer to OSP but also allowing for the grievant to carry his institutional seniority with him to OSP under paragraph 5 of the settlement agreement. The OCSEA then intervened declaring the settlement agreement violated Art. §16.01(B) - Institutional Seniority of the CBA. Subsequently, OCSEA with OCB’s consent amended the settlement agreement to remove paragraph 5 (the transferring of institutional seniority). The arbitrator found that the failure to transfer the institutional seniority as proscribed in the settlement agreement did not violate the rights of the grievant since settlement agreements can only work within the confines of the CBA, in
which this particular agreement did not. No other provisions in the CBA allowed such a settlement agreement by the parties to work outside of the provisions provided by the CBA. The arbitrator further found that the settlement agreement did not need to be executed by the grievant unless a waiver of individual right’s was at issue, which was not at issue in this case. Therefore, the amending of the settlement agreement without the grievant consenting was valid. 818 16.02 – Exceptions Section 16.02 defines seniority and continuous service. Service is continuous unless certain enumerated events have occurred. A layoff is not one of the events. Thus, the grievant’s seniority and continuous service must include the period of the layoff and of the employment prior to the layoff. Contract language signifies that seniority can be adjusted retroactively for periods prior to the contract. The arbitrator ordered that the grievant’s longevity pay and vacation accrual be calculated on the basis of the grievant’s seniority which includes the layoff and the time prior to the layoff. 215 If the employer undertakes to limit seniority rights other than as mutually agreed upon in Article 16.02, such action constitutes a violation of the collective bargaining agreement. 215 Three Bureau of Employment Services employees grieved that their seniority dates were wrong. They had held positions with the employer until laid off in 1982. They were called back to intermittent positions within 1 year but not appointed to full-time positions until more than 1 year had elapsed from their layoff. The employer determined that they had experienced a break in service as placement in intermittent positions was not considered to meet the definition of being recalled or re-employed. The arbitrator found that the term “re-employment” carries its ordinary meaning and not that meaning found in the Ohio Administrative Code when used in Article 16 and the 1989 Memorandum of Understanding of Seniority, thus the grievants did not experience a break in service because they had been re-employed to intermittent positions. The grievants were determined not to continue to accrue seniority while laid off. The employer was ordered to correct the seniority dates of the grievants to show no break in service and that any personnel moves made due to the seniority errors must be corrected and lost wages associated with the moves must be paid. 426 The employer violated Articles 16 & 17 of the Contract by appointing a person with less seniority than the grievant, to a position that was to be filled on the basis of seniority. 548 (1994- 97 contract) ARTICLE 17 - PROMOTIONS, TRANSFERS, AND RELOCATIONS Where the grievant’s request for a shift change for child care reasons was denied, the arbitrator upheld the employer’s decision saying that the union failed to show there were any openings on the other shifts available and that Article 17 would have prohibited a discretionary shift change for the grievant. 91 The employer violated Article 17 when it demoted a supervisor into a position (created by the demotion) identical to positions in the bargaining unit, thus creating a bargaining unit vacancy and filling it without following the contractual job-bidding regulations. 242 The employer violated Articles 16 & 17 of the Contract by appointing a person with less seniority than the grievant, to a position that was to be filled on the basis of seniority. 548 (1994- 97 contract) Under Contract Article 17, when accepting applications for vacancies that an employer plans to fill by permanent transfer or promotion, the employer is required to select the applicant who has met the minimum qualifications set out in the classification specification and the position description. In this case, the grievant was not minimally qualified, so a junior applicant who met the minimum qualifications was rightfully selected for the position. 567 (1994-97 contract) The issue in this grievance is whether the employer has the right to place an exempt employee back into the bargaining unit once he/she has moved outside of the bargaining unit. A training officer applied for and was awarded an exempt position of Training Center Manager. As a result of restructuring, her position was eliminated. The employer allowed the individual to return to her previous bargaining unit position
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 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: 2. The Agreement also designates th
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?