by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
commodities was completely lacking in common sense. The Arbitrator also found that the grievant was in violation of the cited work rules and the last chance agreement. These conclusions were based on the fact that the grievant has a responsible position and that he acted without obtaining any advice. Removal was held to be an appropriate disciplinary action. 612 (1997-2000 contract) The grievant accepted a $400 loan from the resident. The grievant agreed to repay the loan upon receipt of her income tax refund. The resident contacted the grievant's administrator in order to obtain his help in collecting the remaining $375 of the loan, of which the grievant had repaid the resident $25. The Administrator charged the grievant with a violation of the Home's disciplinary rules as the grievant allegedly directed insulting language at the resident as well as accepted a loan from the resident in direct contradiction of the Ohio Veterans Home's rules. Article 24.01 states "Disciplinary action shall not be imposed except for just cause". The Arbitrator held that the Employer failed to meet the just cause standard for removal of the grievant. 613 (1997- 2000 contract) Management alleged that both grievants pinched a resident which caused her to jump. Another resident was grabbed by the shirt, pinched under the arm as she was being led away and told to “shut up" by Grievant #2. It was also alleged that Grievant #2 put her middle finger up to the left eye of a resident who was blind in the right eye. Both grievants were accused of calling a resident "crow legs". Finally, Grievant #2 was accused of physically assaulting a resident by slapping her in the face. The Arbitrator found that just cause existed for the removal of both of the grievants, who were both Therapeutic Program Workers charged with engaging in client abuse. The Arbitrator's finding that the grievants abused the clients was based primarily on the inconsistent statements of the grievants and the fact that the grievants were uncooperative during the investigation of the alleged incidents. 616 (1997-2000 contract) The Arbitrator held that just cause existed for the grievant's removal because his actions constituted sexual harassment, a "Malum in se" offense (acts which are wrong in themselves, whether per human law, or not), and created a hostile work environment. The Arbitrator emphasized that the grievant's actions were neither welcome nor encouraged by the victim and ultimately were severe and humiliating enough to adversely affect the victim's work performance. 618 (1997-2000 contract) During a corrective counseling meeting with the grievant, the grievant was informed of three problematic areas of her performance: difficult working relations with other correction officers, informal inmate complaints of favoritism, and erratic overall performance on her cellblock. The grievant became angry and management witnesses claim that the grievant said "I quit" several times and that she subsequently removed her identification badge and left. The grievant, on the other hand, believed that she was being fired. The grievant was asked to sign a quit slip, which she refused to do. Subsequently, the grievant was relieved of her badge and identification. However, the grievant was informed that she could get her badge and identification when she returned. The grievant argued that she was constructively discharged without just cause in violation of Article 24. The Arbitrator concluded that since the grievant refused to sign a written resignation and that the State failed to demonstrate that the grievant voluntarily surrendered her badge and identification, the grievant was constructively discharged without just cause. 620 (1997-2000 contract) The grievant was at work while the State Highway Patrol conducted a drug sweep of the facility. The grievant's car was found to contain drug paraphernalia. Prior to the search, the grievant claimed that his brother had borrowed his car the previous day. Only one trooper claimed that the grievant admitted that the marijuana was his. A drug test conducted on the grievant that same day was negative. The grievant argued that he was removed without just cause in violation of Article Section 24. The Arbitrator held that the Employer removed the grievant without just cause since in similarly situated cases, other employers were not discharged for a similar violation. Further, the Arbitrator stated that managers must be held to the same or higher standards than their subordinates, which included the grievant. 621 (1997-2000 contract) The grievant did not properly assessed an inmate's condition in the infirmary, nor had the grievant provided proper medical treatment to
Page 1 and 2:
INDEX BY CONTRACT SECTION ARTICLE 1
Page 3 and 4:
this case, one cannot conclude that
Page 5 and 6:
Muskingum Counties that were consol
Page 7 and 8:
in Article 24.04 as a meeting. The
Page 9 and 10:
Article 2.01 requires that neither
Page 11 and 12:
The Arbitrator found that when the
Page 13 and 14:
hardship when an employee was on Un
Page 15 and 16:
determined that through Article 5,
Page 17 and 18:
The grievant had a thirty-day time
Page 19 and 20:
Management established a list of in
Page 21 and 22:
the FR clothing during these five m
Page 23 and 24:
11.11 - Concern for Pregnancy Hazar
Page 25 and 26: of the contract occurred. Based upo
Page 27 and 28: “In paragraph 3…the word “win
Page 29 and 30: overtime. The arbitrator found that
Page 31 and 32: an educated guess, the grievance mu
Page 33 and 34: 2. The Agreement also designates th
Page 35 and 36: which this particular agreement did
Page 37 and 38: In this case the Union grieved that
Page 39 and 40: Arbitrator held that the Grievant f
Page 41 and 42: when he was placed back into his fo
Page 43 and 44: selected because she was within ten
Page 45 and 46: she was in Section 17.04 applicant
Page 47 and 48: for a new DCS Assessment. The union
Page 49 and 50: won is not sufficient to prove incr
Page 51 and 52: Ohio Revised Code 145.298 requires
Page 53 and 54: 18.04 (formerly Article 18.03 of 19
Page 55 and 56: establishes that the just cause sta
Page 57 and 58: suspension would be excessive and u
Page 59 and 60: employee cannot be on “notice”
Page 61 and 62: grievant was a nine-year employee w
Page 63 and 64: not lead to the conclusion that the
Page 65 and 66: grievant’s allegation that the si
Page 67 and 68: etween the grievant and his supervi
Page 69 and 70: her car on state property and she p
Page 71 and 72: The Employer had just cause to remo
Page 73 and 74: The employer had just cause to remo
Page 75: a period of about 10-15 minutes whe
Page 79 and 80: answer questions, even after the De
Page 81 and 82: offenders. The incident was recorde
Page 83 and 84: judgment and his less than credible
Page 85 and 86: employees and the Union are aware t
Page 87 and 88: once the Youth was on the ground. C
Page 89 and 90: enroll in an EAP program within fiv
Page 91 and 92: The parties did not intend that pre
Page 93 and 94: progressive and commensurate discip
Page 95 and 96: Bureau of Employment Services, had
Page 97 and 98: jurisdiction to resolve differences
Page 99 and 100: language toward a number of inmates
Page 101 and 102: a motor vehicle with an inoperative
Page 103 and 104: The grievant was removed for allege
Page 105 and 106: her work. The arbitrator stated tha
Page 107 and 108: meeting. The evidence also suggeste
Page 109 and 110: egarding IME’s within ODNR. The a
Page 111 and 112: individual under the supervision of
Page 113 and 114: arbitrator noted that if the behavi
Page 115 and 116: particularly in light of layoffs, b
Page 117 and 118: “extraordinarily patient with the
Page 119 and 120: and he had remained in contact with
Page 121 and 122: credible. Evidence presented indica
Page 123 and 124: oad, commonsensical guidelines abou
Page 125 and 126: aware of the grievant’s poor work
Page 127 and 128:
procedural error. He found that whe
Page 129 and 130:
youth at his facility. The evidence
Page 131 and 132:
COs were aiding in investigations a
Page 133 and 134:
The grievant was involved in a resp
Page 135 and 136:
with sleep apnea and begun treatmen
Page 137 and 138:
that he would have accrued during t
Page 139 and 140:
years of state service. The arbitra
Page 141 and 142:
workers who were aware of the condu
Page 143 and 144:
criminal Assault and Falsification.
Page 145 and 146:
held that removal was unreasonable,
Page 147 and 148:
was knowledgeable of the corrective
Page 149 and 150:
24.04 - Pre-Discipline supervisor.
Page 151 and 152:
equire support before one can estab
Page 153 and 154:
is considered when fashioning a rem
Page 155 and 156:
The grievant was an investigator wi
Page 157 and 158:
egarding the conduct of a superviso
Page 159 and 160:
The grievant was a Corrections Offi
Page 161 and 162:
considered the grievant’s guilty
Page 163 and 164:
24.05. The Arbitrator agreed with t
Page 165 and 166:
The grievant was reinstated to her
Page 167 and 168:
consider that the co-worker may hav
Page 169 and 170:
grievant’s removal was upheld, an
Page 171 and 172:
once the Youth was on the ground. C
Page 173 and 174:
undermines the purpose of the EAP p
Page 175 and 176:
exercised its discretion in an arbi
Page 177 and 178:
the possible violation was not brou
Page 179 and 180:
irrelevant for the purpose of calcu
Page 181 and 182:
grievance was held arbitrable, (the
Page 183 and 184:
prohibited from using the grievance
Page 185 and 186:
employee in her right to bring a gr
Page 187 and 188:
26, 1994. The language of Contract
Page 189 and 190:
y the grievant, would be compensabl
Page 191 and 192:
committed other acts of neglect of
Page 193 and 194:
filed a grievance arguing that assi
Page 195 and 196:
guarantee that a document has suffi
Page 197 and 198:
25.08 because the union made excess
Page 199 and 200:
26.03 Work on Holidays No dispute e
Page 201 and 202:
ARTICLE 28 - VACATIONS 28.01 - Rate
Page 203 and 204:
contains various interventions and
Page 205 and 206:
comported entirely with her initial
Page 207 and 208:
ARTICLE 32 - TRAVEL 32.02 - Persona
Page 209 and 210:
ARTICLE 36 - WAGES 36.02 - General
Page 211 and 212:
37.04 - In-Service Training Under 3
Page 213 and 214:
arbitrator found the grievance arbi
Page 215 and 216:
43.03 - Mid-Term Contractual Change
Page 217 and 218:
permanent part-time employees earn
Page 219 and 220:
she was evaluated below average in
Page 221 and 222:
“similar or related series” as
show all

by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?