by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

the inmate. The grievant's tardy response, lack of
preparedness when arriving on the scene during a
second incident, and improper conduct once the
grievant arrived on the scene, were in direct
conflict with institutional policies on CPR, and
the inappropriate pronouncement of the inmate's
death nearly caused a riot in the dorm. The
grievant did not properly assess an inmate's
condition in the infirmary, nor had the grievant
provided proper medical treatment to the inmate.
The grievant's tardy response, lack of
preparedness when arriving on the scene during a
second incident, and improper conduct once he
did arrive, were in direct conflict with
institutional policies on CPR, and the
inappropriate pronouncement of the inmate's
death nearly caused a riot in the dorm. The
arbitrator found that the grievant clearly violated
work rules that day, and acted in a way which
contradicted his role of providing proper inmate
care in accordance with professional nursing
standards during the emergency call.
Additionally, the grievant violated the
institutional policy dealing with emergency
equipment because he failed to arrive with the
proper medical equipment. Although the grievant
claimed that the equipment was not available,
there is no evidence that the grievant even
looked for the proper equipment. On the whole,
the arbitrator viewed the grievant's actions as
reprehensible and negligent. 622 (1997-2000
contract)
According to a Correction Officer who witnessed
the confrontation, the grievant punched an
inmate in the jaw. The witness also stated that
the inmate was not being unruly at the time, and
that the inmate was handcuffed behind his back.
The grievant testified before the committee that
when he asked the inmate why he was
handcuffed, the inmate became abusive and spit
on the grievant. The grievant stated that he
reacted by pushing the inmate away so that the
inmate would not spit at him again. The grievant
recognized the fact that hitting an inmate in this
situation would not have been justified. The
Arbitrator found that the Employer had just
cause to suspend the grievant for ten days
because the evidence showed that the grievant
had violated the Lebanon Correctional Institution
rule which prohibits the use of excessive force
towards an inmate. 623 (1997-2000 contract)
The Arbitrator found that just cause existed for
the grievant's removal because the grievant
signed a friend's name to a refund application
without permission and took the refund without a
supervisor's approval. The Arbitrator held that
both acts clearly violated Department of Public
Safety work rules and procedures. 624 (1997-
2000 contract)
The Employer claimed that the grievant treated
clients in a discourteous manner. Because BWC
had notified its employees that removal would
result upon a second incident of exhibiting a lack
of courtesy when dealing with clients, and that
this was at least the second time the grievant had
done so, the Arbitrator found that the Employer's
Removal Order was justified. 629 (1997-2000
contract)
The Grievant was involved in a physical
altercation with a co-worker. Article 24.01 states
that disciplinary action shall not be imposed
upon an employee except for just cause. The
Arbitrator held that just cause did not exist for
the Grievant's removal because the evidence
submitted was insufficient. Further, the
investigation was conducted in an unfair manner
because the two employees were treated
unequally. 634 (1997-2000 contract)
The grievant was charged with Failure of Good
Behavior and Neglect of Duty after several
specific allegations, including failure to follow
scripted openings and closings for telephone
calls, addressing callers as "babe" and "honey",
failing to verify information and answering the
phone without responding, causing callers to
hang up. The Arbitrator held that the Employer
did not have just cause to remove the grievant,
even though the charges were supported by the
evidence, but that the grievant's removal should
be reduced to a four week suspension because of
the Employer's failure to use progressive
discipline. 635 (1997-2000 contract)
Management charged that the grievant threatened
and intimidated coworkers, failed to answer
questions during an investigation, after being
given a "Garrity waiver" on two occasions, and
refused to participate in a required psychological
examination. The Arbitrator noted that only the
charge of Neglect of Duty allows removal as a
form of discipline for a first offense and that
removal only applies if the grievant’s conduct
placed life, property, or public safety in danger.
The Arbitrator found that the record did not
indicate that the grievant’s conduct placed life,
property or public safety in danger. The
Arbitrator noted that the grievant’s refusal to