by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

The Employer had just cause to remove the
grievant because the grievant failed to abide by
the previous arbitration award requirements. The
grievant was permitted to seek a modification
order of his driver’s license suspension, but let
his driver’s license expired, preventing him form
obtaining a modification. Allowing his license to
expire showed disregard for his employer’s
needs and for the arbitration award. 441(A)
(1992-94 contract)
The employer had just cause to remove the
grievant. There is insufficient evidence as to
whether the grievant did in fact physically abuse
a patient. However, there is evidence that the
grievant failed to exercise good judgment, and
do the removal is modified to a 90-day
suspension. 443 (1992-94 contract)
The employer had just cause to discipline the
grievant, but not to remove her. The Employer
was not timely in initiating discipline, it merged
separate infractions to apparently build a case
against the grievant, preventing progressive
discipline, and charged the grievant with a
general work rule rather than a more specific
charge, which led to ambiguity. The employer
also failed to have a clear doctor’s verification
policy. The grievant did not abandon her job.
She did, however, fail to follow the call-off and
sick leave policies, and so some measure of
discipline is warranted. The removal was
modified to a 60-day suspension. 444 (1992-94
contract)
The Employer had just cause to discipline the
grievant because, in addition to not informing
her supervisors that her Unit was critically
understaffed, she had two previous written
reprimands. However, the Employer failed to
show patient abuse or neglect, and failed to show
just cause for removing the grievant. 447 (1992-
94 contract)
The Employer had just cause to remove he
grievant, a Correction Officer, for violating Rule
46(e) of the Standards of Employee conduct. She
engaged in an unauthorized personal relationship
with a parolee. The grievant engaged in a longterm
relationship with a parolee prior to and
following her appointment, and she failed to
disclose the matter after orientation and training
involving the specific rule. 451 (1992-94
contract)
The Employer had just cause to remove the
grievant for making racial slurs. The grievant
never apologized, nor did he testify as to his
intention or state of mind when he made these
racial slurs. His longevity, the harm caused, his
prior discipline and any mitigating factors must
be balanced. Such balancing is at the prerogative
of the Employer unless it is not progressive or
commensurate. The Arbitrator cannot substitute
her judgment for that of the Employer without
such a finding. There is no such finding here.
452 (1992-94 contract)
The employer had just cause to remove the
grievant because he falsified his applications for
both temporary and permanent employment, as
well as his resumes. He lied about his education
and prior employment, and manufactured a letter
of recommendation. The Arbitrator rejected the
argument that no harm came to the employer
because of the grievant’s good work record. The
substantial harm is that the employer did not
have a free choice to pick and choose its
employee upon the real work experience and
education of the applicant. 453 (1992-94
contract)
The Employer did not have just cause to remove
the grievant, in spite of the fact that the grievant
was off work five days while in jail, that he had
no leave balances to cover the time, and that the
State does not excuse employees who are in jail.
The generally accepted approach in dealing with
employees with drug or alcohol problems is to
attempt to rehabilitate them rather than terminate
them. Several factors led to the Arbitrator’s
decision to reinstate the grievant; he had his
father call off for him because he could not, he
was a satisfactory employee with 5 years
seniority, the State was not substantially harmed
by the grievant’s absences, and the grievant
entered an EAP program before being informed
of disciplinary action. 456 (1992-94 contract)
The Employer had just cause to remove the
grievant for sexual harassment and failure of
good behavior, especially considering the
grievant’s disciplinary record. The grievant was
provided with proper notice concerning the
sexual harassment policy articulated in the Work
Rules and Procedures. The Employer’s training
efforts were sufficient in providing proper notice
concerning the sexual harassment policy.
Witness testimony demonstrated that the
grievant’s lewd, harassing behavior created an