by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

sufficient in providing proper notice concerning the sexual harassment policy. Witness testimony demonstrated that the grievant’s lewd, harassing behavior created an oppressive working environment. 461 (1992-94 contract) The grievant was provided with proper notice concerning the sexual harassment policy articulated in the Work Rules and Procedures. The employer’s training efforts were sufficient in providing proper notice concerning the sexual harassment policy. 461 (1992-94 contract) The Union’s claim of disparate treatment is not persuasive. The employer investigated three cases and found differences which explained any disparity in discipline. Other employees, not all black, have been removed for substantiated patient abuse. 463 (1992-94 contract) The Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s grooming policy does not violate Section 2.01 of the Agreement, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. 474 (1992- 94 contract) The department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s grooming policy does not violate section 2.01 of the Agreement, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion, or national origin. 474 (1992-94 contract) The Union did not establish that the beliefs of native Americans require long hair for men, which is prohibited by the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction’s grooming policy. 474 (1992-94 contract) The Arbitrator took seriously the allegations of racial hostility, but there was no evidence of personal animosity existing between the State’s principal witness and the grievant. There must be some evidence other than the allegations in order to support the claims of disparate treatment. 480 (1992-94 contract) The issue of disparate treatment was not properly raised by the Union, which had the burden of proof. 482 (1992-94 contract) The arbitrator disregarded the State’s claim that it would be unfairly prejudiced by the consideration of the Union’s discrimination claim. The State was neither unfairly surprised nor disadvantaged because it should have recognized that the Union was relying on Article 36.05 as the basis for its pre-positioning charge. 487 (1992-94 contract) The facts that the grievant had been previously discharged and reinstated with back pay and there was a substantial delay in paying the grievant does not establish that the State was biased against the grievant in violation Article 2.01. This is true since the delay in payment seemed more attributable to a dispute over the amount than harassment. The presence of another employee, who was also in the department when the door was observed open but who received no discipline, did not establish disparate treatment because the grievant was disciplined on the basis of eyewitness testimony. The other employee was never observed in a position to see that the door was open; therefore, it would have been inappropriate to impose discipline upon him. 493 (1992-94 contract) Involvement in EAP is voluntary; therefore, ODOT’s refusal to enter into an EAP agreement with the grievant was not fatal to its case and was within its rights under Article 5. This is especially true since the grievant was previously convicted of theft, but never removed; there was no evidence that ODOT was predisposed to remove the grievant, and there was no evidence that the grievant was subject to disparate treatment. 500 (1992-94 contract) That the grievant is an African-American and was not given excused time to attend United Way meetings does not establish evidence of race discrimination. Also, that two employees who attended such meetings were Caucasian does not provide evidence of race discrimination. In order to support a claim of racial discrimination prohibited by the Agreement there must be some evidence, in some direction, beyond the coincidence pointed to by the Union. 552 (1994-97 contract) Under Contract Article 2, discrimination on the basis of race, sex, creed, color, religion, age, national origin, political affiliation, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status on the part of employers is prohibited pursuant to the laws of the United States, or the State of Ohio or Executive Orders. In this case, the Arbitrator held that the employer did not discriminate on the basis of disability so that the employer would be able to accommodate her. 562 (1994-97 contract)
Article 2.01 requires that neither the Union nor the State discriminate on the basis of race, sex, creed, color, religion, age, national origin, political affiliation, disability, or sexual orientation. The Arbitrator held that the disparate treatment of two employees’ Employee Assistance Program requests did not necessarily constitute discrimination. The employee making such a claim must prove that the treatment of his/her request was motivated by one of the aforementioned issues. 605 (1994- 1997contract) While the Grievant claimed to have the necessary background in research methods in her summary of her qualifications, the information contained in her application and resume did not support her claim. She failed to show any experience with operational, mathematical, analytical, or statistical research methods. The Arbitrator rejected the claim that when the state denied her an interview for the Planner 3 position and awarded it to someone else, it engaged in sex and/or age discrimination in violation of Article 2. A large portion of the employees in the Emergency Management Agency are women and three of the top five leadership positions are held by women. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant failed to show that she satisfied the minimum qualifications for the Planner 3 position when she applied. The grievance was denied. 938 Insubordination is a serious offense. The Grievant’s misconduct took place in a correctional facility where following orders is particularly important. The very next day the Grievant violated policies and procedures when she left a youth unattended. The Grievant’s disciplinary history was a major factor supporting termination—she had received a 12- day suspension on January 19, 2005. The Arbitrator rejected the claims that the Grievant was the victim of disparate treatment; that the imposition of discipline was delayed; and that the employer was “stacking” charges against the Grievant in order to justify her termination. The Union was unable to show how the delay prejudiced the Grievant’s case or violated the contract. The decision to combine two incidents appeared to be reasonable. The disciplinary record of another JCO involved in leaving the youth unattended justified the different treatment. The Arbitrator concluded that the Grievant’s discharge was for just cause and was in compliance with the collective bargaining agreement. 942 The grievant was a CO who was charged with allegedly giving preferential treatment to an inmate and having an unauthorized relationship with an inmate. The grievant admitted at arbitration that on occasion he provided an inmate cigars, scented oil and food from home and restaurants. He admitted that he accepted cigarettes from inmates who received contraband. The arbitrator found that the grievant was removed for just cause. His misconduct continued for an extended period of time; thus his actions were not a lapse in judgment. He attempted to conceal his misconduct by hiding food so the inmates could find it. Therefore, the grievant knew what he was doing was wrong. The grievant accepted “payment” for the contraband when he accepted cigarettes in exchange for the food and other items he provided to the inmates. The arbitrator found that grievant’s actions compromised the security and safety of inmates and all other employees at the facility. 953 The grievance was granted in part. The Grievant was reinstated, but was not entitled to back pay or any other economic benefit. The Grievant must enter into a Last Chance Agreement with DPS for two years and must successfully complete an appropriate program under the OEAP guidelines. If the Grievant failed to comply with any of the conditions he would be subject to immediate removal. The Employer waited 55 days to notify the Grievant that a problem existed with two assignments. The Arbitrator agreed that this delay was unreasonable under Article 24.02 and was not considered grounds to support removal. Given that his direct supervisors considered the Grievant a good worker, any conduct which could accelerate his removal should have been investigated in a timely manner. The Arbitrator found that sufficient evidence existed to infer that the Grievant’s conduct surrounding one incident--in which proper approval was not secured nor was the proper leave form submitted--was directly related to a severe medical condition. Twenty one years of apparent good service was an additional mitigating factor against his removal. DPS met its burden of proof that the Grievant violated DPS’ Work Rule 501.01(C) (10) (b) on two dates and that discipline was appropriate, but not removal. However, as a long-term employee the
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: in Article 24.04 as a meeting. The
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 and 76:
a period of about 10-15 minutes whe
Page 77 and 78:
commodities was completely lacking
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?