by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

merely be qualified. Therefore, if there are one or more qualified bidders within the subsection pool under consideration, the employer has the obligation to select the most senior, even if he or she can show that a junior bidder from the same subsection is demonstrably superior. 457 (formerly Article 17.05 of 1986 contract) It is the Union’s burden to show that senior bidders are qualified. 457 (formerly Article 17.05 of 1986 contract) The State improperly commingled bidders categorized under both Article 17.05(A) and (E) in the interview process for two Systems Analyst 1 positions. Those in (A) must be evaluated and determined unqualified before consideration of applicants under (E) takes place. Agency discretion in scheduling interviews only exists within each subsection’s group of bidders. 457 (formerly Article 17.05 of 1986 contract) The grievant, a Utility Rate Analyst 2, lacked the necessary familiarity and proficiency with the computer software as required by the position description for the Utility Rate Analyst 3. Consequently, the grievant had no contractual right to the position. 487 (formerly Article 17.05 of 1986 contract) Even if the grievant met and was proficient in the minimum qualifications, the State could properly have used the “demonstrably superior” language in Article 17.06 to select the junior applicant over the more senior grievant. 487 (formerly Article 17.05 of 1986 contract) Because of the different training the members of each department received and the specialized duties and responsibilities of the Utility Rate Analyst 3, it was virtually impossible for a candidate working outside the Forecasting Department to compete with a candidate with inside knowledge and experience. Despite the unfair results, the State did not violate the contract. 487 (formerly Article 17.05 of 1986 contract) A grievant did not meet the standards of Article 17, because she was not “proficient” in the minimum qualifications contained in the class specification and the position description. 545 (1994-97 contract) The Arbitrator held the phraseology of Article 17.06 has been interpreted to mean that the State must demonstrate that a junior employee enjoyed a "substantial difference" in his or her favor in order for the junior employee to be promoted over a senior employee. The State bears the burden of demonstrating that the junior bidder meets this standard. 583 (1994-97 contract) The Arbitrator determined that the grievant failed to meet the minimum qualifications for Project Inspector 2 even though he was senior to the chosen applicant. The Arbitrator determined: 1) the grievant failed to meet the minimum qualifications; 2) the grievant never held a Project Inspector 1 position; and 3) the Union failed to provide equivalent evidence of the Major Worker Characteristics. Therefore, management did not violate Article 17.06. 593 (1994-97 contract) The Union argued that Management violated Article 17.06 which provides, "the job shall be awarded to the qualified employee with the most state seniority unless the agency can show that a junior employee is demonstrably superior to the senior employee". However, the Arbitrator held that the grievant did not meet the qualifications of the Carpenter 2 position and that the State proved that the junior employee was demonstrably superior to the grievant. 617 (1997-2000 contract) 17.06 – Selection The Arbitrator held the phraseology of Article 17.06 has been interpreted to mean that the State must demonstrate that a junior employee enjoyed a "substantial difference" in his or her favor in order for the junior employee to be promoted over a senior employee. The State bears the burden of demonstrating that the junior bidder meets this standard. 583 The Arbitrator determined that the grievant failed to meet the minimum qualifications for Project Inspector 2 even though he was senior to the chosen applicant. The Arbitrator determined: 1) the grievant failed to meet the minimum qualifications; 2) the grievant never held a Project Inspector 1 position; and 3) the Union failed to provide equivalent evidence of the Major Worker Characteristics. Therefore, management did not violate Article 17.06. 593 The 2006 DCS Assessment is content valid. The union is not limited in grieving content validity
for a new DCS Assessment. The union and employees will be notified if a new assessment is implemented. Betsy Stewart and Robert Watts will be placed at management’s discretion into a DCS position once OBM gives approval. They will begin their probationary period then. They will begin receiving compensation as a DCS beginning with the pay period 04/13/08. The placement of Betsy Stewart and Robert Watts is not precedent setting nor does it violate Article 17. 994 17.07 – Applications The grievant signed a letter accepting his current position which stated that he did not have the right to bid for a position in District 11. 290 There are at least two plausible interpretations of Article 17.04. Appendix J was virtually undiscussed in negotiations. The majority of the exhibits support the State’s position that the grievant was a Central office staff member and not a member of the Northeast office that would allow him to bid on a job position or promotion there. Since the interpretation of “within” can be read several different ways, the arbitrator fell back on the past practice of the Agency. In the past an employee given bidding rights in the Central Office, District 13 would not be allowed to bid for a position in District 6. The grievant was only assigned to the Central Office, not permanently placed in this District so the grievant was not “within” either District 11 or the Northeast region permanently. The grievant was also given notice that his position was not longer a District 11 position. On the original acceptance form he wrote in his own hand the condition “with bidding rights in District 11.” This condition was not approved and the grievant later signed an acceptance form that did not include this condition. There have been no changes since the grievant signed this form that would lead the grievant to believe he now has a right to bid in District 11. 290 The grievant was not selected for a promotion. The employer argued that the grievant did not fall within a “similar or related series” as required by Article 17.04 of the Agreement. Prior to the arbitration the employer stipulated that the grievant was in the “similar or related class series” but was not “within the office, institution, or geographic district of the Agency (see Appendix J) where the vacancy is located.”. 290 The employer transferred an employee to another area that was understaffed. The position was permanent and full-time. When filling such positions the Agreement clearly, unmistakably and unreservedly required that the position be posted. The employees are permitted to bid. The qualified employee with the most State seniority was deprived of the opportunity for being awarded the position under Section 17.05 of the Agreement. Employees must be provided the opportunity to exercise their rights to bid on a vacancy before a transfer may be effected. 349 It was decided that the grievant was not a new State employee but she was a new employee of the agency. According to the Civil Service Rules, employees for the State maintain certain benefits when they move from job to job, but the Union did not reference specific language showing that an employee moving from one state agency to another must always move at the same or greater wage rate. The new agency considered the grievant a new hire and it was generally accepted that she had a 120-day probationary period and presumably, after successful completion, she would move up a step per Section 36.02 of the Agreement. The grievant’s claim that she merely transferred to the new agency was not supported. Article 17 of the Agreement defines promotion as moving to a higher pay range and a lateral transfer as a movement to a different position at the same pay range. It does not specify that a lateral transfer from one agency to another agency within the State must be at the same step within the same pay range. The employer did not transfer the grievant she applied for a vacant position. 360 17.08 – Transfers (Section 17.07, 1986 Agreement) The resignation of an OBES Claims Examiner 2 created a vacancy which the employer did not post, but instead transferred in a Claims Examiner 2 from an office outside the district. The transferred employee received a new Position Control Number, but not the one vacated by the employee who resigned. A violation of the contract was conceded by the employer and the sole issue was the appropriate remedy. The arbitrator ordered the position in question to be vacated and posted for bids. The transferred employee was allowed to remain in the position until the status of her application
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 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: she was in Section 17.04 applicant
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?