02.05.2014 Views

by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

establishes that the just cause standard was<br />

applied. 248<br />

The Arbitrator held that the grievant was not<br />

entitled to progressive discipline due to the<br />

seriousness of the violation (fighting). 586<br />

(1994-97 contract)<br />

The grievant was charged and acquitted of<br />

criminal misconduct, yet the Arbitrator found the<br />

investigation that identified the grievant as the<br />

responsible party was full and fair and<br />

conclusive. While it is true that the <strong>Contract</strong><br />

requires the employer to follow a principle of<br />

progressive discipline and the employer's own<br />

policy permits flexibility in the penalty, the<br />

<strong>Contract</strong> and just cause standards also demand<br />

that disciplinary action be commensurate with<br />

the offense. Removal for theft is justified<br />

provided that the employer is not arbitrary,<br />

capricious or discriminatory in its imposition.<br />

587 (1994-97 contract)<br />

Considering the fact that the investigation was<br />

complete when the indictment was returned, the<br />

Arbitrator concluded, pursuant to <strong>Contract</strong><br />

Article 24, that the employer had the option to<br />

terminate the grievant’s Administrative Leave<br />

and, if circumstances warranted, the grievant<br />

could have been returned to work. In the instant<br />

case the grievant could not return to work.<br />

Therefore, it was appropriate for the employer to<br />

terminate the grievant’s Administrative Leave.<br />

Additionally, the employer had just cause to<br />

terminate the grievant based on the grievant’s<br />

Neglect of Duty, Absence Without Leave and<br />

Job Abandonment. 591 (1994- 97 contract)<br />

24.01 - Standard<br />

A very high standard of “just cause” must be met<br />

where the employee has 20 years of service with<br />

the state. 3<br />

Provision against arbitrator modifying discharge<br />

where abuse is found was held not to apply<br />

where there was no abuse under the departments<br />

definition of abuse. 14<br />

There was no intent of the parties as to the scope<br />

of “abuse” in section 24.01. 56<br />

For the purposes of the Department of Mental<br />

Health and the Department of Mental<br />

Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, the<br />

parties shall be subject to the definition of abuse<br />

contained in Ohio Revised Code 2903.33(B)(2)<br />

and their respective Ohio Administrative Code<br />

Sections (5123-3-14(C)(1) and 5122-3-<br />

14(C)(1)). For the purposes of all other<br />

departments, however, all applicable state laws<br />

shall be incorporated only if the parties have<br />

traditionally<br />

employed the term “abuse” in determining the<br />

propriety of termination decisions. 56<br />

Since 24.01 requires just cause for any<br />

discipline, the employer must establish that it<br />

had just cause to undertake the termination<br />

before it can allege that an arbitrator does not<br />

have authority to modify a penalty. 56, 108<br />

The employer has the burden of proof to<br />

establish just cause for termination. 71<br />

Where the employer has published guidelines for<br />

timeliness in steps of the disciplinary process<br />

which were presumably relied upon <strong>by</strong><br />

employees, since 24.02 requires that disciplinary<br />

action be initiated as soon as is reasonably<br />

possible and directs that the arbitrator consider<br />

“timeliness of the Employer’s decision to begin<br />

the disciplinary process, and since just cause<br />

under 24.01 requires fairness in the imposition of<br />

discipline, having promulgated the guidelines,<br />

the employer must follow them. 83<br />

Under 24.01, the employer has the burden of<br />

proof to establish just cause for the removal of<br />

the grievant from employment. Termination<br />

constitutes “economic capital punishment” and<br />

heightens the burden of proof on the employer to<br />

produce at least a preponderance of evidence<br />

sufficient to warrant discharge. 91<br />

Arbitrator held that where she did not modify<br />

grievant’s termination, but did award back pay,<br />

the award did not violate 24.01 even if the<br />

offense was Abuse. 105<br />

Employer violations of 25.08 (failure to furnish<br />

documents) are relevant as to whether the<br />

employer established just cause for discipline.<br />

116<br />

Proof that the grievant is guilty as charged does<br />

not automatically justify the penalty. The<br />

arbitrator is required to weigh the discipline<br />

against 3 interrelated contractual standards:<br />

1. Discipline must follow the principles of<br />

progressive discipline.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!