by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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