by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

conclude that the youth was not suicidal and did
not state that he was going to harm himself.
Even though the Grievant claimed the youth was
going to harm himself, he did not implement a
planned use of physical response per DYS policy
301.05. The physical response utilized by the
Grievant was unwarranted under the facts, and it
constituted a violation of Rule 4.12. The
Grievant escalated the situation by removing
items from the youth’s room—an action that was
not required. The Grievant could have utilized
other options, but did not. After physically
restraining the youth, the Grievant contacted two
operations managers. If he was able to contact
his supervisors after the restraint, what was the
imminent intervention that precluded his
contacting them prior to the altercation? The
Arbitrator held that DYS had just cause to
discipline the Grievant and given his prior
discipline of record, their actions were not
arbitrary, unreasonable, or capricious. 1002
The Arbitrator held that a statement by the
Grievant in an email was a false, abusive, and
inflammatory statement concerning his
supervisor. The Grievant did provide false
information in an investigation. The Arbitrator
found that the Grievant was not permitted to
complete closing inventory on the Operation in
question; consequently, he did not breach his
job duty to complete the inventory properly. The
record supported the finding that the Grievant
did not provide even a minimal level of support
to the Operator in dealing with customer
complaints about the operation of her facility.
Therefore, the Arbitrator held that the Grievant
did fail to carry out one of his assigned job duties
and failed to follow administrative rules.
Because some of the Grievant’s work was for his
personal business and for his job at Columbus
State Community College, the work was for his
personal gain. The Arbitrator held he did fail to
follow administrative regulations in the use of
his computer equipment assigned to him. The
Grievant did have 27 years service to the
Commission and had no disciplinary record.
However, his ease in involving his blind clients
in the investigation of his own conduct as a
Specialist demonstrates a lack of sensitivity to
the vulnerability of his clients. His supervisor
was visually impaired and he wrote a false
statement about her in the course of an
investigation. Both actions show that the
Grievant exhibits little concern for the blind. The
Arbitrator found that the grievant cannot be
trusted to return to an organization devoted to the
service of the blind. 1005
The Arbitrator found nothing in the record to
support the falsification charge. The
administration and interpretation of the Hours of
Work/Time Accounting Policy were
inconsistent. The policy in no way restricts an
employee’s ability to supplement an approved
leave and lunch with an afternoon break. The
Employer admitted violating Article 24.04 by
failing to inform the Union about the purpose of
the interview. It viewed the violation as de
minimus. The Arbitrator found that this cannot
be viewed as a mere procedural defect. “Without
prior specification of the nature of the matter
being investigated, the right of ‘representation’
becomes a hollow shell.” Without a purpose
specification, interviews become an unfocused
information gathering forum and can often lead
to ambiguous results. The Employer attempted
to raise certain credibility concerns because the
Grievant provided differing justifications for her
action at the investigatory interview versus the
pre-disciplinary hearing. This difference in
justification was plausible since the purpose
requirement of Section 24.04 was violated. A
contractual violation of this sort represents a
severe due process abridgment, which the Ohio
Revised Code, state and federal courts view as a
critical element of representation rights.
Investigation defect allegations dealing with
unequal treatment were supported by the record.
Other similarly situated bargaining unit members
who had not been disciplined for similar offenses
were identified for the Employer. The Employer
did nothing to investigate this unequal treatment.
1006
The Arbitrator held that there
was ample evidence that the
Grievant failed to take care of
a resident of the Ohio
Veteran’s Home. The
Grievant left the resident, who
was unable to take care of
himself, unattended for five
and one-half hours. In light of
the Grievant’s prior discipline,
the Arbitrator found the
removal to be progressive.
The Union made a procedural
objection to the use of video
evidence on a CD, because it
was not advised of the CD’s
existence until less than a week
prior to the hearing. Since the