by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The work was not consolidated or redistributed. The abolishment was illegal. 340 The employer in this case did redistribute the abolished duties correctly but this does not complete an analysis of a job abolishment. The employer must prove in this case its efficiency argument. The employees who took over the duties of a Health and Safety Inspector I, the abolished position, were not shown to be properly trained or knowledgeable. The Union’s introduction of increased citations for not properly filing accident reports shows how inefficient this abolishment was; the State did not prove its case and the abolishment was not proper. 340 The employer replaced the abolished position’s duties with the service of an outside private institution. If the appointing authority decides to subcontract the work it becomes almost impossible to show that a lack of work existed for this position. If the position is transferred, either internally or externally, it cannot be said to be permanently deleted. 340 The employer properly abolished the positions of three Hospital Aide Coordinator I’s. The work was distributed to other employees holding different positions. The fact that one HAC was working out of her classification prior to the abolishment reinforces the employer’s argument that this position was not linger required. The employer’s need for more direct care staff to follow a “normalization” program was legitimate and the abolishments were a way to efficiently pursue this goal. 340 The arbitrator was unwilling to substitute his judgment for the employer’s in deciding between managerial alternatives. 340 The Union can win a particular abolishment claim without presenting any direct evidence countering an employer’s efficiency justification. In doing so, however, the Union faces the possibility of failing to introduce sufficient opposing testimony to dissuade a positive impression created by the employer’s testimony. Preponderance of the evidence, the standard that the State must establish, is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as: “It rests with the evidence which, when fairly considered, produces the stronger impression, and has the greater weight, and is more convincing as to its truth when weighed against the evidence in opposition thereto.” The arbitrator made the point that it would be wise for the Union to introduce evidences that could weigh against the State’s case. 340 The federal government created established hiring criteria, and funded job training positions with in the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services for Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Specialists (DVOPS), and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVERS). The OBES and Department of Labor negotiated changes in the locations of these employees which resulted in layoffs which were not done pursuant to Article 18. Title 38 of the United States Code was found to conflict with contract Article 18. There is no federal statute analogous to Ohio Revised Code section 4117 which allows conflicting contract sections to supersede the law, thus federal law was found to supersede the contract. As the arbitrator’s authority extends only to the contract and state law incorporated into it, the DVOPS’ and LVERS’ claim was held not arbitrable. Other resulting layoffs were found to be controlled by the contract and Ohio Revised Code sections incorporated into the contract (see, Broadview layoff arbitration #340). The grievance was sustained in part. The non-federally created positions had not been properly abolished and the affected employees were awarded lost wages for the period of their improper abolishments. 390 Nothing in any of the Article 18 sections .02 through .08 contradict, modify or eliminate the Five Year Rule. The Arbitrator rejected the argument that Article 18 supersedes the Ohio Revised code and the Ohio Administrative Code. The Article specifically states the ORC and OAC sections are included. If the parties intended that Sections 18.02 through 18.05 should completely supersede the ORC and OAC, the Contract would so state. In addition, nowhere is any time limit stated on these rights. 450 (1992-94 contract) The burden to demonstrate rationale for job abolishment and layoff decisions rests on the Employer. 454 (1992-94 contract) The Employer fulfilled its burden to demonstrate the rationale for its job abolishment and layoff decisions. There was either a lack of work or the duties had been absorbed by other bargaining unit members. 454 (1992-94 contract)
Ohio Revised Code 145.298 requires that under certain conditions of layoff, the Employer is required to establish a retirement incentive plan for employees of the employing unit in which the layoffs are to take place. 458 (1992-94 contract) For purposes of ERI, “employing unit” is defined as “any entity of the state including any department, agency, institution of higher education, board, bureau, commission, council, office or administrative body or any part of such entity that is designated by the entity as the employing unit”. 458 (1992-94 contract) The State had discretion to designate the employing unit. 458 (1992-94 contract) Article 43.04 of the Contract provided some basis for finding that the Employer should have extended ERI to OBES employees indirectly affected by being bumped as a result of Public Assistance Service Operations (PASO) being abolished. 458 (1992-94 contract) The Employer has not shown that even though the retirement of public employees is a matter of law and because an early retirement plan benefit is not specifically a contractual benefit, there are sufficient reasons to preclude the grievances from being arbitrable. 458 (1992-94 contract) There is no language in the Collective Bargaining Agreement which specifically defines early retirement incentive plans. The 1989-1991 Collective Bargaining Agreement does not support the claim that people out of the PASO unit have a contractual right to be offered ERI’s. 458(A) (1992- 94 contract) There was no violation of the Contract when the Employer abolished boiler operation and stationary engineer positions, laying off ten employees, because the heating system was upgraded from a central coal burning furnace to a satellite gas furnace, eliminating the work of those positions. 459 (1992-94 contract) The Employer has borne its burden of proof that both Planner 2 positions were justifiably abolished when a reduction or elimination of duties and responsibilities caused by statutory, philosophical and operational changes resulted in a lack of continued need for the positions and a reorganization of MRDD was for economy and efficiency. 460 (1992-94 contract) Before the grievant could be laid off as a permanent full-time employee in her classification, intermittent employees in that same classification must be laid off first. 471 (1992-94 contract) Even if the cause of the grievant’s layoff was a job abolishment further up the line, Ohio Revised Code § 124.321(B) makes a job abolishment a layoff. 471 (1992-94 contract) The Arbitrator is not bound to the contents of the job abolishment rationale because the review of the substantive justification of the abolishment is a trial de novo before the Arbitrator, where the employer shall demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the job abolishment meets the standards imposed by the Ohio Revised Code. 476 (1992-94 contract) The tasks formerly done by the grievant have either been eliminated or consolidated, and therefore, the abolishment was substantively justified and meets the standard of the Ohio Revised Code. 476 (1992-94 contract) If the Arbitrator finds a procedural error in a job abolishment, the Arbitrator must allow the abolishment to stand if the appointing authority has substantially complied. 476 (1992-94 contract) To determine if a job abolishment is procedurally correct, one must first define the “appointing authority” before determining if it has substantially complied. 476 (1992-94 contract) The Employer substantially complied with job abolishment procedure. The Employer showed that there was harmless error and a lack of prejudice to the grievant. 476 (1992-94 contract) The Union has not met the level of proof sufficient to overcome the abolishment on the basis of procedural error. 478 (1992-94 contract) The Secretary and Administrative Assistant Positions were abolished, but all of the work remained, and a substantial part of it was reassigned to non-Union personnel, violating Article 1.03 of the agreement. 478 (1992-94 contract) Laying off five of nine psychiatric attendant coordinators left none scheduled for the third
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 and 46: she was in Section 17.04 applicant
Page 47 and 48: for a new DCS Assessment. The union
Page 49: won is not sufficient to prove incr
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?