by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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