by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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)
18.04 (formerly Article 18.03 of 1986 and 1989 contracts) – Bumping in the Same Office, Institution or County When layoff is proper, bargaining unit employees will first exhaust all bumping rights under the Contract. If no bumps are available, they may bump outside the bargaining unit into the lesser appointment category according to the order of layoff provisions found the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code and incorporated by reference into the Contract. 471(A) (1992-94 contract) Bargaining Unit employees who bump employees in lesser appointment categories that are outside the bargaining unit shall be given the maximum retention points available for their performance evaluations. This award shall be calculated according to the Code provisions. 471(A) (1992-94 contract) Once bargaining unit employees bump outside the bargaining unit, subsequent displacements shall occur according to the appropriate provisions of the ORC and the OAC. 471(A) (1992-94 contract) Under Article 18 an ODOT employee used her right to bump. As a result of this employee using her right to bump, the grievant was displaced from her position. 551 (1994-97 contract) 18.05 (formerly Article 18.04 of the 1986 and 1989 contracts) – Bumping in the Agency Geographic Jurisdiction When layoff is proper, bargaining unit employees will first exhaust all bumping rights under the Contract. If no bumps are available, they may bump outside the bargaining unit into the lesser appointment category according to the order of layoff provisions found the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code and incorporated by reference into the Contract. 471(A) (1992-94 contract) ARTICLE 19 - WORKING OUT OF CLASS 19.01 – Position Description The Arbitrator held that the proper resolution of this issue lies within Article 19. To hold that Article 19 is inapplicable to the grievance would require the Arbitrator to ignore the parties’ CBA and the plain meaning of Article 19. The plain language of Article 19 does not forbid multiple grievances over a similar infraction, but only limits the remedy to individual claims. The Arbitrator held that the Agreement does not guarantee that classifications will remain unchanged throughout the life of the agreement. The analysis sought to resolve each claim needs to occur in accord with Article 19 to determine the appropriate remedy. 979 19.02 - Grievance Steps The Arbitrator concluded that the Arbitrator at a Working Out of Classification hearing is specifically authorized to direct a monetary award in accordance with Section 19.02, Step 1 of the Contract and that the language “[i]f the higher level duties are of a permanent nature...” does not serve to prevent an Arbitrator from issuing a monetary award if the higher classification is represented by a different bargaining agent. If the parties had desired to put such a limitation on the Arbitrator, they would have done so. However, they did not. 599 (1994-97 contract) Did the Employer violate the CBA by assigning feeding duties to Corrections Officers who work in satellite locations at Allen Correctional Institution? If so, what should the remedy be? The Arbitrator held that the proper resolution of this issue lies within Article 19. To hold that Article 19 is inapplicable to the grievance would require the Arbitrator to ignore the parties’ CBA and the plain meaning of Article 19. The plain language of Article 19 does not forbid multiple grievances over a similar infraction, but only limits the remedy to individual claims. The Arbitrator held that the Agreement does not guarantee that classifications will remain unchanged throughout the life of the agreement. The analysis sought to resolve each claim needs to occur in accord with Article 19 to determine the appropriate remedy. 979 19.04 – No Pre-Positioning ODOT posted a vacant Equipment Operator 2 position. The grievant and others bid on the vacancy, however two applicants also had filed job audits which were awarded prior to the filling of the vacancy. The vacancy was cancelled because of the job audits. The arbitrator found the union’s prepositioning
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 and 50: won is not sufficient to prove incr
Page 51: Ohio Revised Code 145.298 requires
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?