by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

was warranted for insubordination. The
grievance was denied. 404
The grievant was a Youth Leader who had been
removed for abusing a youth. He was accused of
pushing and choking the youth. The grievant
testified that he had other youths present leave
the room so that he could talk to the complaining
youth. The employer’s witness testified that the
grievant told the youths to leave so he could kick
the complaining youth’s ass. The arbitrator held
that the employer failed to prove that the
grievant abused a youth because that he did not
intentionally cause excessive physical harm. The
grievant was found to have used excessive force
in restraining the youth and the removal was
reduced to a one month suspension with back
pay, less outside earnings. 407
The grievant was removed for misuse of his
position for personal gain after his supervisor
noticed that the grievant, an investigator for the
Bureau of Employment Services, had received an
excessive number of personal telephone calls
from a private investigator. The Ohio Highway
Patrol conducted an investigation in which the
supervisor turned over 130-150 notes from the
grievant’s work area and it was discovered that
the grievant had disclosed information to three
private individuals, one of whom admitted
paying the grievant. The arbitrator found that the
employer proved that the grievant violated Ohio
Revised Code section 4141.21 by disclosing
confidential information for personal gain. The
agency policy for this violation calls for removal.
The employer’s evidence was uncontroverted
and consisted of the investigating patrolman/s
testimony, transcribed interviews of those who
received the information, and the grievant’s
supervisor’s testimony. The grievant’s 13 years
seniority was an insufficient mitigating
circumstance and the grievance was denied. 408
The grievant was a Therapeutic Program Worker
who was removed for abusing a patient by
restraining him in a manner not provided for in
the client’s restraint program. The client was
acting out while eating and the grievant either
choked or placed the client in a bear hug. The
arbitrator found that the employer proved that the
grievant abused the client. The grievant was
shown to have engaged in acts inconsistent with
clients’ human rights by restraining the client in
a way not permitted by the client’s program or
the agency’s policies. The testimony of the
employer’s witnesses was found to be more
credible than that of the grievant, and there was
no evidence of coercion by the employer or
collusion among the witnesses. The arbitrator
recognized that if abuse was proven, then no
authority exists to reduce the penalty of removal,
thus the grievance was denied. 409
While on disability leave in October 1990 the
grievant, a Youth Leader, was arrested in Texas
for possession of cocaine. After his return to
work, hewas sentenced to probation and he was
fined. He was then arrested in Ohio for drugrelated
domestic violence for which he pleaded
guilty in June 1991 and received treatment in
lieu of a conviction. The grievant was removed
for his off-duty conduct. The grievant’s guilty
plea in Texas was taken as an admission against
interest by the arbitrator and the arbitrator also
considered the grievant’s guilty plea to drug
related domestic violence. The arbitrator found
that the grievant’s job as a Youth Leader was
affected by his off-duty drug offenses because of
his coworkers’ knowledge of the incidents. The
employer was found not to have violated the
contract by delaying discipline until after the
proceedings in Texas had concluded, as the
contract permits delays pending criminal
proceedings. No procedural errors were found,
despite the fact that the employer did not inform
the grievant of its investigation of him, nor
permit him to enter an EAP to avoid discipline.
No disparate treatment was proven as the
employees compared to the grievant were
involved in alcohol related incidents which were
found to be different than drug-related offenses.
Thus, the grievance was denied. 410
The grievant was hired as a Tax Commissioner
Agent and had received a written reprimand for
poor performance while still in his probationary
period. He was assigned a new supervisor who
developed a plan to improve his performance,
however the grievant continued to receive
discipline for poor performance and absenteeism,
including a ten day suspension which was
reduced pursuant to a last chance agreement. It
was discovered after the last chance agreement
had been made, that prior to the signing of the
last chance agreement, the grievant had
committed other acts of neglect of duty. The
grievant was removed for neglect of duty. The
arbitrator held that a valid last chance agreement
would bar an arbitrator from applying the just
cause standard to a disciplinary action and that
the agreement made by the grievant was valid. It
was also found that there existed hostility