by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

arbitration test applied) rather than borrow it. Taking the tape home without authorization was found to be a violation of the employers’ rules. The employer was found not to have applied double jeopardy to the grievant as only one disciplinary proceeding had been brought and the transfer was found not to be disciplinary in nature. The 30 day suspension was found not to be reasonably related to the offense, nor corrective and was reduced to a 1 day suspension with full back pay for the remaining 29 days. 417 An inmate was involved in an incident on January 4, 1991 in which a Corrections Officer was injured. The inmate was found to have bruises on his face later in the day and an investigation ensued which was concluded on January 28th. A Use of Force committee investigated and reported to the warden on March 4th that the grievant had struck the inmate in retaliation for the inmate’s previous incident with the other CO on January 4th. The predisciplinary hearing was held on April 15, and 16, and the grievant’s removal was effective on May 29, 1991. The length of time between the incident and the grievant’s removal was found not to be a violation of the contract. The delay was caused by the investigation and was not prejudicial to the grievant. The arbitrator found that the employer met its burden of proof that the grievant abused the inmate. The employer’s witness was more credible than the grievant and the grievant was found to have motive to retaliate against the inmate. The grievance was denied. 421 The grievant was removed for failing to report off, or attend a paid, mandatory four-hour training session on a Saturday. The grievant had received 2 written reprimands and three suspensions within the 3 years prior to the incident. The arbitrator found that removal would be proper but for the mitigation factors present. The grievant had 23 years of service, and her supervisors testified that she was a competent employee. The arbitrator noted the surrounding circumstances of the grievance; the grievant was a mature black woman and the supervisor was a young white male and the absence was caused by an embarrassing medical condition. The removal was reduced to a 30 day suspension and the grievant was ordered to enroll in an EAP and the arbitrator retained jurisdiction regarding the last chance agreement. 422 The grievant was an LPN who had been assaulted by a patient at the Pauline Lewis Center and she had to be off work due to her injuries for approximately 1 month. When she returned she was assigned to the same work area. She informed her supervisor that she could not work in the same work area, and was told to go home if she could not work. The grievant offered to switch with another employee who she identified, but the supervisor refused. She then told her supervisor she was going home but instead switched work assignments. The grievant had prior discipline including two 6 day suspensions for neglect of duty. The supervisor concluded that the grievant was given a direct order to work in her original work area. The grievant erroneously believed that switching assignments was permitted. Despite the grievant’s motivation for her actions, the grievant’s prior discipline warranted removal, thus the grievance was denied. 424 The grievant was an employee of the Lottery Commission who was removed for theft. The agency’s rules prohibit commission employees from receiving lottery prizes, however the grievant admitted redeeming lottery tickets, but not to receiving notice of the rule. The arbitrator noted that while the employer may have suspected the grievant of stealing the tickets, there was no evidence supporting that suspicion and it cannot be a basis for discipline. The arbitrator found that the grievant did redeem lottery coupons in violation of the employer’s rule and Ohio Revised Code section 3770.07(A) but that he had no notice of the prohibition either through counseling or orientation. The grievant was reinstated without back pay but with no loss of seniority. 425 The grievant was removed after 13 years service from her position with the Bureau of Rehabilitation Services for unapproved absence, conviction of a drug charge, and failure to report the drug charge as required by the state’s Drug- Free Workplace policy. The Bureau is funded by the federal government and is subject to the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988. The grievant had a history of alcohol problems. She was also involved with a co-worker who, after the relationship ended, began to harass her at work. She filed charges with the EEOC and entered an EAP. The former boyfriend called the State Highway Patrol and informed them of the grievant’s drug use on state property. An investigation revealed drugs and paraphernalia in
her car on state property and she plead guilty to Drug Abuse. She became depressed and took excessive amounts of her prescription drugs and missed 2 days of work. She was admitted into the drug treatment unit of a hospital for 2 weeks. She was on approved leave for the hospital stay, but the previous 2 days were not approved and the agency sought removal. The arbitrator found that while the employer’s rules were reasonable, their application to this grievant was not. The Drug-Free Workplace policy does not call for removal for a first offense. The employer’s federal funding was not found to be threatened by the grievant’s behavior. The grievant was found to be not guilty of dishonesty for not reporting her drug conviction because she was following the advice of her attorney who told her that she had no criminal record. The arbitrator noted that the grievant must be responsible for her absenteeism, however the employer was found to have failed to consider mitigating circumstances present, possessed an unwillingness to investigate, and to have acted punitively by removing the grievant. The grievant’s removal was reduced to a 10 day suspension with back pay, benefits, and seniority, less normal deductions and interim earnings. The record of her two day absence was ordered changed to an excused unpaid leave. The grievant was ordered to complete an EAP and that another violation of the Drug-Free Workplace policy will be just cause for removal. 429 The grievant was an investigator with the Department of Commerce who had been suspended for 5 days for failing to follow his itinerary for travel and filing incorrect expense vouchers. The grievant’s itinerary indicated that he would be in Toledo on a Friday, and he submitted expense vouchers for the trip, however it was discovered that he worked at home during the day in question. The arbitrator found that the employer violated Section 24.04 by failing to provide witness lists and documents and not answering the grievants letters. Section 25.08 was not found to be violated. The employer’s selection of predisciplinary hearing officer was unwise because he had an interest in the outcome and that the investigation was incomplete and unfair. The arbitrator also found that the grievant’s itinerary was a contemplated itinerary and that he had informed his supervisor of schedule changes, however the grievant was AWOL as there was no provision for working at home. Disparate treatment was suspected by the arbitrator, who also noted that the grievant exhibited a contemptuous attitude towards management. The suspension was reduced to a 1 day suspension. 430** The grievant was a Therapeutic Program Worker who was removed for abusing a patient. The patient has behavioral problems which include refusing to eat and throwing food. The patient was combative during lunch and the grievant was accused of pouring a bucket of water on him afterwards. The arbitrator found that the employer proved that the grievant did in fact pour a bucket of water on the patient and that the act, inconsistent with the patient’s restraint program, met the standard for abuse. That others did not report the incident for several weeks and that their motive for reporting it was retaliation against the grievant was found to be irrelevant. The arbitrator applied the analysis of removal for abuse from the Dunning decision which provides that the employer must still have just cause for the removal even if abuse has been proven: removal is not automatic. The arbitrator found no just cause for removal and because the employer’s disciplinary grid provides for suspensions for first offenses of client neglect/abuse, the arbitrator reinstated the grievant with no back pay. 431** The grievant was removed for unauthorized possession of state property. $96.00 was found in his trunk. The Columbus police discovered the tape, notified the employer and found that the tape was missing from storage. The arbitrator found that the late Step 3 response was insufficient to warrant a reduced penalty. The arbitrator also rejected the argument that the grievant obtained the property by “trash picking” with permission, and stated that the grievant was required to obtain consent to possess state property. It was also found that while the employer’s rules did not specifically address “trash picking” the grievant was on notice of the rule concerning possession of state property. The grievance was denied. 432 The grievant, a Therapeutic Program Worker, took $150 of client money for a field trip with the clients. The grievant was arrested en route and used the money for bail in order to return to work for his next shift. The grievant was questioned about the money before he could repay it, he offered to repay it. He was paid on Friday, but failed to offer payment until the next
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 and 64: not lead to the conclusion that the
Page 65 and 66: grievant’s allegation that the si
Page 67: etween the grievant and his supervi
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?