by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

shift, further eroding the bargaining unit. 478
(1992-94 contract)
The Employer showed that the grievant’s job,
Treatment Plant Operations Coordinator, was
permanently deleted, i.e., that the tasks were
consolidated or redistributed among other
workers who, according to their job
specification, were permitted to carry out such
tasks. 483 (1992-94 contract)
The Employer carries its burden of proving that
by a preponderance of the evidence that the job
abolishment of the Administrative Assistant
1position was justified and in accordance with
ORC § 123.321-327. 485 (1992-94 contract)
Costs, including copying, mailing and time
savings, recovered by moving a position form
Athens to Washington County met the State’s
burden of proving economy and efficiency. 499
(1992-94 contract)
The Arbitrator concluded that the abolishment of
the Vocational Instructor 2 position was not a
violation of Article 18, because the employer
proved by a preponderance of the evidence that
the job abolishment was a result of a
reorganization for the efficient operation of the
employer for the reasons of economy, or lack of
work. 565 (1994-97 contract)
The Orient Correctional Institution was closed.
Orient employees exercised their bumping rights
per the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
A letter was sent to those individuals who were
bumped indicating that they had recall rights in
the “same, similar or related classification series”
with their facility or “within the recall
jurisdiction.” The Union interpreted the letter to
mean recall rights to the institution. The State
did not agree. The arbitrator found that the
language of Section 18.11 of the CBA supported
the State’s position. Recall rights are within the
recall jurisdiction and are not specific to the
institution. The arbitrator determined that the
letter was wrong and that “an erroneous letter
from the head of an institution cannot alter the
terms of the CBA. 812
The grievant was laid off from her full-time
position at Ross Correctional. Although she was
eligible to bump into Lebanon Correctional,
which is in the same geographic jurisdiction, the
grievant chose to go to a facility closer to her
home. She was also offered a part-time position
at a developmental center, which she declined
with the understanding that her refusal would
remove her from the part-time recall list. She
was also removed from the full-time recall list in
error and without her knowledge. The grievant
became aware of the error when she was not
recalled to a full-time LPN position at Ross. A
less senior individual was appointed to the
position. The grievant remained at the facility
she bumped into for approximately 2 and onehalf
years, at which time she was recalled back
to Ross. This grievance was appealed in the
attempt to recover the additional expense of a
longer commute to and from work (84-mile
round trip, at 30¢/mile x 214 trips). The
arbitrator determined that the employer
improperly removed the grievant from the fulltime
recall list; thus, violating Article 18, and
that the grievant should be compensated for the
expense of maintaining her employment. 900
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
(training officer). The union contended that the
individual should have been placed in a pool of
applicants for selection. The arbitrator found
that the contract is silent on the issue of fall back
rights and therefore the Ohio Revised Code §
4121.121(B) (2) applies. The employer’s actions
were consistent with ORC § 4121.121(B) (2).
The employer placed the individual into a vacant
position in the same classification held prior to
being awarded the manager’s position. Article
18 had no bearing on this grievance. Due to the
absence of specific contractual language, the
issue of fall back rights is controlled by ORC §
4121.121(B) (2). 920
18.02 – Guidelines
Section 18.02 of the Contract specifically
mandates layoff in inverse order of seniority to
protect bargaining unit employees. 471 (1992-
94 contract)
Appointment categories are irrelevant within the
bargaining unit with regard to the order of layoff
because the seniority provisions of the Contract
take precedence. 471(A) (1992-94 contract)