by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Section 24.01 specifically states that “if the
Arbitrator finds that there has been abuse of a
patient or another in the care or custody of the
State of Ohio, the Arbitrator does not have the
authority to modify the termination of an
employee committing such abuse.” The burden
of proof in cases such as this, in which there are
allegations of serious misconduct, should be
higher than proof by a preponderance of the
evidence. This Arbitrator agreed that the
standard should be proof by clear and convincing
evidence. 557 (1994-97 contract)
Management did not have just cause to remove a
grievant for an arrest and plea of no contest to
drug possession. Since the State did not
introduce any additional evidence to support its
claim of the grievant’s guilt of drug possession,
removal was not commensurate with the
violation. 558 (1994-97 contract)
Under the Contract Article 24.01, an employer
must first show just cause prior to imposing
disciplinary action on an employee. In this case,
the Arbitrator held that the employer had just
cause for disciplining the grievant based on
previous discipline in the same area. 562 (1994-
97 contract)
Pursuant to Contract Article 24.01, just cause
was not found in a case where the grievant was
discharged for misappropriation of funds where
there was no direct evidence and the grievant
was subsequently acquitted of the charges in a
criminal trial. 566 (1994-97 contract)
Pursuant to article 24.01, if the Arbitrator finds
that there has been abuse of a resident, the
Arbitrator does not have authority to modify the
termination of an employee committing such
abuse. In this case, the Arbitrator held that there
was no finding of abuse of a resident, so Article
24 did not apply. 568 (1994-97 contract)
Under Article 24 of the Contract “disciplinary
action shall not be imposed upon an employee
except for just cause.” Furthermore, the
discipline shall be progressive and it “shall be
commensurate with the offense.” However, if the
offense is of a very serious nature, progressive
discipline may not be appropriate. When the
employer removes an employee, an Arbitrator
cannot overrule this employer’s decision unless
there is a good and sufficient reason to do so. In
this case there are such reasons. 571 (1994-97
contract)
Since there was no standard included in the
Contract between the parties for removal, the
Arbitrator would not impose one. The Arbitrator
held that the standard of “clear and convincing”
evidence was not to be imposed upon the State,
but rather what is required is a heavy burden to
present sufficient evidence that discharge is
warranted.” 573 (1994-97 contract)
Where the grievant misplaced his security
equipment in an area not accessible to inmates
for a short time, the Arbitrator determined the
employer did not have just cause to suspend the
grievant for ten days. 578 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant was removed for patient abuse. The
Arbitrator found that the testimony of the coworkers
and one patient all supported the
employer's case. The witnesses were also all
found to be credible and any inconsistencies in
their testimony were minor. In addition, the
grievant himself admitted that he committed
some wrongdoing. Therefore, the Arbitrator
determined that there was just cause to remove
the grievant. 579 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant had worked for the State for over
18 years, 12 of which had been spent as a
Therapeutic Program Worker at the Apple Creek
Developmental Center. The Arbitrator held that
the grievant was properly removed for physical
abuse. Section 24.01 of the Contract limits the
scope of an Arbitrator's authority when dealing
with abuse cases. If the charge of abuse is
properly supported, this section precludes an
Arbitrator from modifying the imposed
termination based on any procedural defects or
any other type of potentially mitigating evidence
or testimony. 581 (1994-97 contract)
This case involved two separate incidents. Both
incidents resulted in charges that the grievant
engaged in willful falsification of an official
document and leaving the work area without
authorization (unexcused absence). The grievant
testified that he called the Secretary to advise her
that he was going to be late getting back from
lunch. However, the grievant's supervisor
investigated this incident because the grievant
had been accused of falsifying daily attendance
records by actually taking up to and sometimes
exceeding 2 hours for lunch but only recording I
hour. As a result of this incident, the grievant
was suspended for 25 working days. The
charges from the second incident were based on