by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

employer violated the contract and reinstated the
grievant without back pay. 383
The grievant worded in a Medical Records office
when a new supervisor was hired in January
1985. The supervisor changed the office
location and began to strictly enforce the work
rules. The office layout was also changed twice
due to new equipment purchases. The supervisor
also instituted a physician’s verification policy
which was stricter than the previous policy. The
grievant was on work related disability in
February 1987. She received Disability Leave
benefits and Workers’ Compensation. When
these benefits expired she began working for a
private employer. She received an order to return
to work in July 1987 because management
discovered her other employment. The grievant
refused to return to work under her prior
supervisor. The grievant appealed her denial of
further Workers’ Compensation benefits and
lost, after which she contacted the facility to
come back to work. The arbitrator found that the
grievant failed to prove supervisory harassment
or constructive discharge. All the supervisor’s
acts were within her scope of authority and
related to efficiency. The removal was timely
because the three-year delay was caused by the
grievant’s pursuit of her worker’s compensation
claim in state court. The arbitrator held that the
grievant abandoned her job and denied the
grievance. 384
The grievant was upgraded through Class
Modernization to a Systems Analyst 2 position.
She received an adequate mid-probationary
rating but received a verbal reprimand for poor
performance afterwards. She alleged supervisory
harassment and was transferred to another
supervisor who also rated her below average in
all six categories. Her performance failed to
improve and she received further discipline up to
and including the ten day suspension which is
the subject of this grievance. She was charged
with failure to follow a direct order, breach of
security for failing to turn her computer terminal
off at the end of the day, and various items
relating to proper completion of work
assignments. However, the employer failed to
send a Step 3 response to the Union. The
arbitrator found that the employer did violate
section 24.02 but there was no harm to the
grievant. The employer proved that the grievant
was guilty of the acts alleged and that here was
no supervisory harassment. Progressive
discipline was followed (a 10 day suspension
following a 1 day suspension) but the procedural
violation warranted a reduction to a seven day
suspension. 386
The grievant was a Youth Leader 2 who had
forgotten that his son’s BB gun was placed into
his work bag so it could be repaired. While at
work a youth entered the grievant’s office, took
the BB gun and hid it in the facility.
Management was informed by another youth and
the grievant was informed the next day. He was
removed for failure of good behavior, bringing
contraband into an institution, and possessing a
weapon or a facsimile on state property. It was
proven that the grievant committed the acts
alleged but removal was found to be too severe.
The grievant had no intent to violate work rules,
the BB gun was not operational, and the
employer withdrew the act of leaving the office
door open as a basis for discipline. The
grievant’s work record also warranted a
reduction to a thirty day suspension. 388
The grievant was a field employee who was
required to sign in and out of the office. He
began to experience absenteeism in 1990 and
entered drug abuse treatment. He continued to be
excessively absent and was removed for periods
of absence from October 2nd through the 10th
and October 26th to the 30th, during which he
called in sporadically but never spoke to a
supervisor. The grievant was found to have
violated the employer’s absenteeism rule.
Additionally, the employer was found not to be
obligated to enter into a last chance agreement
nor to delay discipline until the end of the
grievant’s EAP. Mitigating circumstances
existed, however, to warrant a reduced penalty.
The arbitrator noted the grievant’s length of
service from 1981 to 1990, and the fact that he
sought help himself, therefore the arbitrator
reinstated the grievant with no back pay pursuant
to a last chance agreement, after a physical
examination which must show him to be free of
drugs. 391
The grievant was employed as a Salvage
Processor who was responsible for signing of on
forms after dangerous goods had been destroyed.
He was removed for falsification of documents
fter it was found that he had signed off on forms
for which the goods had not been destroyed. The
arbitrator found that despite minor differences,
the signature on the forms was that of the
grievant. The employer was found to have
violated just cause by not investigating the