by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

a period of about 10-15 minutes when the
grievant could not be located. Considering the
grievant's past record, progressive discipline was
not successful. Furthermore, the employer has
presented sufficient evidence to support its claim
that the grievant's removal was for just cause.
588 (1994-97 contract)
The Union contended that the grievant was
removed without just cause. In order to resolve
the question of whether the grievant was guilty
of theft, the Arbitrator determined the credibility
of the witnesses. The Arbitrator found that the
State’s primary witness, the grievant’s coworker,
was forthright, consistent, had a good
demeanor on the witness stand, and had other
reliable evidence supporting his testimony.
Therefore, the Arbitrator determined that the
grievant was properly removed. 592 (1994-97
contract)
The Arbitrator held that management had just
cause to dismiss an employee who falsified his
time sheets. Although the grievant was a 20 year
employee, the failure of the grievant to
demonstrate that he would behave appropriately
in the future prohibited the Arbitrator from
allowing the employee’s record to serve as a
mitigating factor. 594 (1994-97 contract)
Management presented substantial evidence,
including eyewitness testimony, that the grievant
used excessive force and assaulted a youth
inmate. From the evidence and testimony
introduced at the hearing, and a complete review
of the record, including pertinent contract
provisions, it was the Arbitrator's judgment that
the grievant was removed for just cause. 595
(1994-97 contract)
The grievant, a Corrections Officer, was accused
of striking an inmate during an altercation. A
subsequent criminal trial resulted in the acquittal
of the grievant. However, three other Corrections
Officers witnessed the incident and testified
against the grievant in the arbitration hearing,
The Arbitrator determined that management was
justified in removing the grievant. The Arbitrator
held that the criminal trial was not controlling in
an arbitration. 600 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant filed for PERS disability retirement
on March 14, 1994 after learning that his State
disability payments would cease. During this
time, the State attempted to get him to file the
forms necessary to cover his absence in
compliance with department leave policies and
the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The State
eventually issued an AWOL notice and a written
direct order to the grievant due to his failure to
comply with the proper procedures. The grievant
failed to meet the requirements for unpaid leave,
the State sought a proper leave request. The
grievant failed to respond. After learning that the
grievant's disability benefit appeal had failed, the
State issued another AWOL notice and instituted
disciplinary proceedings. As a result, the
grievant was removed for insubordination and
AWOL violations. The Union notified the State
that it was taking the case to arbitration, but
before the hearing, PERS notified the grievant
that his disability retirement was approved
effective six days before the effective date of his
removal. The Arbitrator concluded that although
discipline was justified, removal was
unreasonably severe under the unusual
circumstances of this case. The Arbitrator held
that a major suspension was in order with the
understanding that if the grievant returns to work
when fit to do so, it will be on a last chance
basis. 601 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant was removed for striking a patient
at the Cambridge Developmental Center. The
Employer failed to prove that the grievant
punched a client in the stomach. Further, the
Arbitrator was inclined to believe the grievant's
version over the surveyor's version based on the
fact that the surveyor only observed the tail-end
of an appropriate intervention and she failed to
see the entire episode due to her obstructed view.
The Employer was unable to provide any
causally-linked injury and the surveyor admitted
the client never flinched as a result of the blow.
The Arbitrator determined that management did
not have just cause to remove the grievant
because they did not provide sufficient evidence
and testimony to sustain the grievant’s removal.
603 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant allegedly had repeated sexual
contact with an inmate. Article 24.01 states that
disciplinary action shall not be imposed upon an
employee except for just cause. The Arbitrator
held that just cause existed for the grievant’s
removal because the repeated violations were of
such a flagrant and appalling nature. 604 (1994-
97 contract)
The grievant’s supervisor had given his
permission for the grievant to attend a meeting
on state time, and to use a state vehicle for the