by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

language of Article 19 does not forbid multiple
grievances over a similar infraction, but only
limits the remedy to individual claims. The
Arbitrator held that the Agreement does not
guarantee that classifications will remain
unchanged throughout the life of the agreement.
The analysis sought to resolve each claim needs
to occur in accord with Article 19 to determine
the appropriate remedy. 979
The Arbitrator held that the Grievant was neither
eligible for, nor entitled to, reinstatement. Based
on the degrees of fault the Grievant was entitled
to twenty-five (25) percent of the back pay from
the date of his removal to the date of the
Arbitrator’s opinion. In addition, the Agency
shall compensate the Grievant for twenty-five
(25) percent of all medical costs he incurred and
paid for out-of-pocket, as a direct result of his
removal. The triggering event for the removal
was the failure to extend the Grievant’s visa. The
following factors contributed to the untimely
effort to extend the visa: (1) the Agency’s failure
to monitor the visa’s expiration, leading to a
belated attempt to extend the visa; (2) the
Agency’s failure to monitor the Grievant’s job
movements; (3) the Grievant’s decision to
transfer to the Network Services Technician
position, which stripped him of proper status
under his visa; and (4) the Grievant’s decision
not to notify his attorney about the transfer to the
NST position. The Grievant’s violation of a
statutory duty, together with his silence, looms
larger in the lapse of the visa than the Agency’s
violation of its implicit duties. The Arbitrator
held that the Agency failed to establish that the
Grievant violated Rule 28. Because the Grievant
was out of status with an expired visa, the
Arbitrator held that he was not entitled to
reinstatement. As to comparative fault, the
Agency and the Grievant displayed poor
judgment in this dispute and neither Party’s fault
absolves the other. 980
Three grievances with a factual connection were
combined. The Arbitrator held that the events of
August 23, 2006 clearly indicated an intention on
the part of the Grievant to resign. The Grievant
and her supervisor met in the supervisor’s office.
At some point in time the Grievant threw the
lanyard that held her ID card and her key card
onto the supervisor’s desk and said “I’m out of
here.” She left to go home. The Union argued
that the comment “I’m out of here.” was the
result of a panic attack and the Grievant was
suffering from safety concerns arising out of the
performance of her work The Arbitrator found
that the Grievant’s panic or anxiety arose in part
from her decision to challenge her supervisor ”to
burn in hell.” She then learned that this
challenge had been reported by the supervisor.
Arbitrator held that there was no retaliatory
discipline against the Grievant for expressing
safety concerns about where she was assigned to
work; nor was she denied emergency personal
leave 981.
The Arbitrator held that the Employer had just
cause to remove the Grievant for falsification.
When an employee is found to have falsified a
series of request forms to receive compensation
for which he is not entitled, this misconduct is
equivalent to “theft.” The Grievant used
education leave for periods of time when no
classes were scheduled and falsified a request for
sick leave on a date he was not sick. The
Arbitrator found no notice defects. The
Grievant’s credibility was hurt based on the
differing justifications for his misconduct. 982
In the period leading up to his dismissal the
Grievant was having issues with members of his
household and his own health. The Grievant did
not call in or show up for work for three
consecutive days. The Arbitrator held that
employers unquestionably have the right to
expect employees to come to work ready to work
when scheduled. However, just cause also
demands consideration for the surrounding
circumstances of a violation, both mitigating and
aggravating. The Arbitrator found the
circumstances in this case did not indicate a
“troubled employee” such as one suffering from
addiction or serious mental illness. Rather, the
Grievant was an otherwise good employee
temporarily in crisis (because of circumstances
beyond his control) and unable to help himself.
This case, in which professional intervention
may eventually rehabilitate the employee, was
ripe for corrective discipline rather than
discharge. The Grievant received a thirty-day
suspension to impress upon him his
responsibility to inform his employer of his
status. 983
The Employer’s procedural objection as to
timeliness was denied because the record failed
to indicate that the Union received notification in
writing to comply with Article 24.06 of the
CBA. The Grievant was involved in breaking up
an altercation between two youth offenders and
was then accused of injuring one of the youth