by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

The employer had just cause to remove the
grievant for being absent without leave (AWOL).
Her two previous attendance infractions, coupled
with other unrelated infractions during her short
employment with the Northwest Ohio
Development Center, justified sustaining the
State’s decision to discharge the grievant. 488
(1992-94 contract)
The Arbitrator is clearly convinced that grievant
Sampson did, on at least the occasions charged,
throw away what he knew or should have known
to be first class mail. However, the evidence is
not clear regarding grievant Lawson. Therefore,
the discipline of Lawson was not for just cause.
Given the lack of recent discipline, the length of
grievant Sampson’s service, and the lack of
proof of malice, a 10-day suspension is not
commensurate. However, given his apparent
reckless disregard for the rules and the mail of
inmates he is sworn to protect, and the
seriousness of the offense, a five-day suspension
is warranted. 492 (1992-94 contract)
The grievant’s rights under Article 24.01 were
not violated; the grievant received a full and fair
investigation despite the fact (1) the Labor
Relations Coordinator, an eyewitness for the
State, questioned a co-worker witness, (2) the coworker
submitted two conflicting accounts of the
incident, and (3) the grievant was never
questioned after his initial interview. 493 (1992-
94 contract)
Disciplinary action shall only be imposed upon
an employee for just cause. If a certain activity
has not been subject to prior discipline then
subsequent discipline may be denied for lack of
just cause. 494 (1992-94 contract)
An improper relationship between a Correction
Officer and an inmate, coupled with a scheme to
avoid detection, is just cause for the employer to
impose discipline upon an employee. 495 (1992-
94 contract)
Patient abuse by a hospital aide is a serious
offense, which can warrant the employer’s
decision to dismiss the offending employee. The
fact that procedural lapses occurred on the part
of the State’s witness at the time of the violation
does not change the fact that patient abuse
occurred. 496 (1992-94 contract)
The grievant was removed for just cause. ODOT
established a nexus between the shoplifting
offense and the grievant’s position as an ODOT
employee and Union shop steward. The grievant
was actually on duty when the incident occurred
and there was notable media coverage of it. The
removal was commensurate with the offense,
because the grievant had been previously
convicted of theft, but not removed. The
mitigating circumstances (i.e., kleptomania
diagnosis, length of service, involvement in a
rehabilitative program) did not overcome the
circumstances and the severity of the offense.
500 (1992-94 contract)
The grievant was seen receiving an object from
an inmate. Questioning by the grievant’s
superior revealed the object to be a ring. The
inmate allegedly stated that he had purchased the
ring for ten cartons of cigarettes and that he had
been showing the ring to the grievant to get an
estimate of its value. He subsequently changed
this statement and indicated that he had found
the ring on the shower floor. A search of the
inmate revealed another ring in his shoe.
Because the grievant had little seniority and the
transaction between the grievant and the inmate
was such a serious offense, the removal of the
grievant was reasonable. 543 (1994-97
contract)
The grievants did not violate Article 24.01 of the
Contract because the State failed to meet its
burden of presenting sufficient credible evidence
and testimony to prove that the grievants abused
the patient. Therefore, their termination was not
for just cause. 547 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant’s failure to obtain the license which
was a prerequisite for the position gave the
employer just cause to terminate him. It does not
matter that the offense took place while the
grievant was off duty since it set into motion the
events which ultimately led to his inability to
obtain a commercial driver’s license. 550 (1994-
97 contract)
The Arbitrator found that the penalty of
discharge was not too severe for the infraction
alleged because of the limited amount of
supervision that the grievant was under. The
amount of trust in the truthfulness of the
employee’s reports is of great importance in the
grievant’s situation. When it is proven that such
trust has been deliberately betrayed, discharge is
not too severe a penalty. 556 (1994-97 contract)