by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Monday. He was removed for Failure of Good
Behavior. While the employer was found to have
poorly communicated its rules concerning use of
client funds, the grievant was found to have
notice of its provisions. The arbitrator found that
the grievant lacked the intent to steal the money,
however the grievant’s failure to repay was not
excused, thus just cause was found for discipline.
Because of the grievant’s prior disciplinary
record, removal was held commensurate with the
offense and the grievance was denied. 433
The grievant was a Mail Clerk messenger whose
responsibilities included making deliveries
outside the office. The grievant had bought a
bottle of vodka, was involved in a traffic
accident, failed to complete a breathalyzer test
and was charged with Driving Under the
Influence of Alcohol. The grievant’s guilt was
uncontested and the arbitrator found that no valid
mitigating circumstances existed to warrant a
reduction of the penalty. The grievant’s denial of
responsibility for her drinking problem and
failure to enroll into an EAP were noted by the
arbitrator. The arbitrator stated that the grievant’s
improved behavior after her removal cannot be
considered in the just cause analysis. Only the
facts known to the person imposing discipline
may be considered at arbitration. The arbitrator
found no disparate treatment as the employees
compared with he grievant had different prior
discipline than the grievant, thus, there was just
cause for her removal. 434
The grievant was given a 10 day suspension for
neglect of duty after failing to assist a youth in
his care at the Indian River School. The youth’s
finger was caught in a door which the grievant
had closed. The arbitrator found that just cause
did not exist because of the lack of credibility of
the employer’s evidence. The grievant was more
credible than the youths who testified against
him. Neglect was found not to be proven because
as soon as the grievant was sure the youth was
injured, he obtained medical assistance for the
injury. The grievance was sustained and the
grievant made whole. 435
The grievant was employed by the Bureau of
Workers’ compensation as a Data Technician 2.
He had been disciplined repeatedly for sleeping
at work and he brought in medication he was
taking for a sleeping disorder to show
management. The grievant was removed for
sleeping at work. The grievant had valid medical
excuses for his sleeping, which the employer was
aware of. The arbitrator stated that the grievant
was ill and should have been placed on disability
leave rather than being disciplined. No just cause
for removal was found, however the grievant
was ordered to go on disability leave if it is
available, otherwise he must resign. 436
The grievant was a cosmetologist who was
removed for neglect of duty, dishonesty and
failure of good behavior. She was seen away
from her shop at the facility, off of state
property, without having permission to conduct
personal business. The arbitrator found the
grievant’s explanation not credible due to the
fact that the grievant did not produce the person
who she claimed was mistaken for her. There
were also discrepancies in the grievant’s story of
what happened and the analysis of travel time.
The arbitrator found no mitigating
circumstances, thus the grievance was denied.
438
The grievant was a custodian for the Ohio
School for the Blind who was removed for the
theft of a track suit. The arbitrator looked to the
Hurst decision for the standards applicable to
cases of theft. It was found that while the
grievant did carry the item out of the facility, no
intent to steal was proven; removal of state
property was proven, not theft. The arbitrator
found no procedural error in the fact that the
same person recommended discipline and acted
as the Step 3 designee. Because the employer
failed to meet its burden of proof, the removal
was reduced to a 30 day suspension with the
arbitrator retaining jurisdiction to resolve
differences over back pay and benefits. 439
The Employer had just cause to remove the
grievant where, in spite of an acquittal by a
court, it is plausible to believe that the grievant, a
Correction Officer, engaged in purchasing drugs
for the purpose of selling them to inmates. 440
(1992-94 contract)
The employer had just cause to discipline the
grievant, who lost his driver’s license due to a
charge of driving while intoxicated. However,
because of his desire to be rehabilitated and his
adequate evaluations removal was too great a
penalty. He was permitted to seek a modification
order of his license suspension allowing him to
perform his job, which required him to drive
state vehicles. 441 (1992-94 contract)