by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

trip. The grievant was arrested in the evening of
the same day while driving the state vehicle He
was charged with speeding for going 80 miles
per hour, and driving under the influence of
alcohol. Arrangements were made for the
District 3 Safety Supervisor to pick up and
inspect the vehicle. The Supervisor found an
opened bottle of rum in the trunk of the vehicle
with a sales slip indicating the alcohol was
purchased earlier that afternoon. 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 of the serious nature
of his conduct, his awareness of the facility’s
rules about alcohol consumption on Ohio
Department of Transportation property, and the
discretionary nature of Employee Assistance
Program agreements. 605 (1994-97 contract)
The grievant's removal was triggered by two
handwritten letters sent to the facility addressed
to an investigator and the warden. The grievant
allegedly was involved in inappropriate conduct
between the grievant and an inmate who had
been a resident of the mental health facility on
eight previous occasions. An investigation of the
inmate's property revealed several photographs
of the grievant. Additionally, the inmate's
handwriting appeared virtually identical to the
handwriting contained in both the letters sent to
the facility. The investigator was later informed
that the inmate made eight phone calls to the
grievant's home. Two of the phone calls were
monitored, recorded and transcribed. The
Arbitrator concluded that the Employer had just
cause to remove the grievant who had been
charged with an unauthorized relationship with
an inmate. The Employer's position was
sustained because the grievant was aware of the
Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections
("DR&C") Rule #46, as well as the
consequences of violating the rule as evidenced
by her signature on a document reciting the rule.
Furthermore, the grievant had constructive notice
regarding the unauthorized relationship policy as
contained in the Oakwood Forensic Code of
Ethics – Rule R which was similar to DR&C's
Rule #46. 607 (1997-2000 contract)
The Arbitrator found just cause for the grievant's
removal, as required by Article 24.01, based on
the evidence provided by the employer which
showed that the grievant had been involved in
drug trafficking while off duty. The Arbitrator
held that the grievant's reputation had been
sufficiently damaged by his arrest to compromise
his authority over the inmates. Therefore, a
nexus was established between the off-duty
conduct and the grievant's job as a Correction
Officer. 608 (1997-2000 contract)
The grievant was disciplined eleven times for
absenteeism. The Arbitrator found that the
Employer met its obligation of progressive
discipline under the terms of the contract, and
had just cause to remove the grievant. However,
the Arbitrator concluded that the spousal abuse
was a mitigating circumstance which should be
considered, and reinstated the grievant without
back pay and without loss of seniority. The
grievant's reinstatement was contingent upon her
participation in an Employee Assistance
Program. 609 (1997-2000 contract)
The Employer did not have just cause to remove
the grievant for threatening to shoot a co-worker
during a confrontation. Just cause requires an
Employer to attempt to salvage employees who
are salvageable. Thus, an Employer must
consider every potentially mitigating factor, as
well as aggravating factors. Although the
grievant had several disciplines for absence
related problems, the Arbitrator found that the
grievant's attendance improved for more than
one year following the EAP referral, most of the
grievant's evaluations were at or above standards
and the grievant acknowledged that the gun
threat was wrong. 610 (1997-2000 contract)
The Arbitrator found that just cause existed for
the grievant's removal under Article 24.01 based
on the circumstances surrounding his request for
sick leave. The Arbitrator stated that the
grievant's credibility regarding the entire
situation was significantly dampened by his
continued refusal to be forthright with his
Employer. Furthermore, the Arbitrator found that
the sudden onset of the grievant's medical
problems, his failure to inform the department
about the suspension of his driving privileges,
and his work schedule at the auto parts store all
indicated that the grievant engaged in a series of
deceitful acts hoping to realize both his sick
leave benefits and his wages from a second job.
Finally, the Arbitrator concluded that this was
clear and convincing evidence justifying the
grievant's removal. 611 (1997-2000 contract)
The Arbitrator concluded that the choice made
by the grievant to complete the dietary
requisition before putting away the frozen