by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
grievant’s allegation that the signature was forged, and by failing to provide information to the union so that it could investigate the incidents. The employer was found not to have met its burden of proof despite the grievant’s prior discipline. 398 The grievant, a Therapeutic Program Worker, received a ten-day suspension for sleeping on duty. A supervisor tried to awaken the grievant but was not successful, although the grievant had been heard talking to another employee shortly before the incident. The grievant had no prior discipline up to the time she had become a steward, then she received two verbal reprimands. Also her performance evaluation s had been above average until the same time, at which point she was evaluated below average in several categories. Lastly, a paddle had been hanging in the supervisor’s lounge with the words “Union Buster” written on it. The arbitrator found that the grievant may have dozed off, but that the employer’s anti-union animus was the cause for the suspension. The paddle in the lounge was evidence of this and the employer had demonstrated reckless disregard for the union relations. The arbitrator held that the employer failed to properly apply its rules, thus, there was no just cause for the 10 day suspension. The discipline was reduced to a 1 day suspension. 400 The employer removed the grievant for two reasons: 1) The grievant committed theft because he had been named as the supplier of checks, that had been returned to the Bureau of Workers’ compensation, to another state employee in order to cash the checks (see arbitration decision #370); 2) falsification of his job application because he admitted during the investigation that he had prior felony convictions which he failed to report on his employment application. The arbitrator held that the employer could not use the falsification charge as a basis for removal because the grievant had sought assistance when he completed his application and lack intent to falsify the application. The employer was also estopped from using the falsification because the grievant had been employed for 8 years, and had been removed once before, thus the employer was found to have had ample time to have discovered the falsification prior to this point. The employer was not permitted to introduce the Bureau of Criminal Investigation’s report into evidence at arbitration because the employer failed to disclose it upon request by the union. The fact that the investigation was ongoing was irrelevant. Just cause was proven through the investigator’s testimony and testimony of others involved in the scheme. The grievance was denied. 401 The grievant had failed to complete several projects properly and on time and another employee had to complete them. She had also been instructed to set projects aside and focus on one but she continued to work on several projects. The grievant had prior discipline for poor performance, including a 7-day suspension. The arbitrator found that the employer had proven just cause for the removal. The grievant was proven unable to perform her job over a period of years despite prior discipline. The fact that another employee completed the projects was found to be irrelevant. Removal was found to be commensurate with the offense because of the prior discipline and the work was found to have been within the grievant’s job description and she had been offered training. Thus, the grievance was denied. 402 The grievant had been a Drivers’ License Examiner for 13 months. He was removed for falsification when he changed an applicant’s score from failing to passing on a Commercial Drivers’ License examination. The arbitrator found that the grievant knew he was violating the employer’s rules and rejected the union’s mitigating factors that the grievant had no prior discipline and did not benefit from his acts. Falsification of license examination scores was found serious enough to warrant removal for the first offense. The arbitrator also rejected arguments of disparate treatment. The grievance was denied. 403 The grievant was a Psychiatric Attendant who had received prior discipline for refusing overtime and sleeping on duty. He refused mandatory overtime and a pre-disciplinary hearing was scheduled. Before the meeting occurred, the grievant was found sleeping on duty. A 6 day suspension was ordered based on both incidents. The arbitrator found that despite the fact that the grievant had valid family obligations, he had a duty to inform the employer rather than merely refuse mandated overtime and, thus was insubordinate. The employer failed to meet its burden of proof as to the sleeping incident, however due to the grievant’s prior discipline a 6 day suspension
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 and 52: Ohio Revised Code 145.298 requires
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: not lead to the conclusion that the
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?