by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

employees and the Union are
aware that video cameras are
placed throughout the
institution, the Arbitrator ruled
that the CD could be used;
however, he reserved the right
to rule on its admissibility in
relation to the evidence. The
Union’s objection to the use of
video evidence was sustained
as to all events that occurred in
a break room. The Arbitrator
found little independent
evidence of those events and
did not consider any of that
evidence on the video in
reaching his decision. 1007
An inmate committed suicide
while the Grievant was
working. Post Orders required
rounds to be made on a
staggered basis every thirty
minutes. On the night the
inmate committed suicide, the
Grievant did not check on the
inmate for two hours. In
addition, the Grievant admitted
to making false entries in the
log book and admitted to not
making rounds properly for ten
years. The Union’s claim that
complacency by Management
was the cause was not
supported by persuasive
evidence. There was evidence
that “employees could be
written up every day.” But
there was also evidence that
Management took steps to
correct this and employees
were given plenty of notice.
The Arbitrator reviewed the
Seven Steps of Just Cause and
found the discipline
commensurate. 1010
The Arbitrator found that the Grievant
told her co-worker that she was taking a
bathroom break at 6:30 a.m., left her
assigned work area, and did not return
until 7:30 a.m. This length of time was
outside the right to take bathroom
breaks, and therefore, the Grievant had
a duty to notify her supervisor. Failing
to notify the supervisor would have
given rise to a duty to notify the
grounds office supervisor who is
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The Grievant’s prior discipline record
should have put her on notice of the
seriousness of the offense. The
supervisor should have raised the matter
of the absence with the Grievant sooner,
but there was nothing in the record to
show that this failure in any way
inhibited the case presented by the
Union, or enhanced the case presented
by the Employer.
The Arbitrator held that there was no
proof that the discharge was tainted by
any claim of due process or unfairness,
when the same supervisor conducted
both the fact-finding and the
investigation. The most damaging
testimony to the Grievant was presented
by her co-employees, not by the
supervisor. The Arbitrator found that
the Grievant exhibited disregard for the
performance of her duties to care for the
residents, a matter for which she had
been amply warned on previous
occasions. 101
The evidence does support a finding
that just cause exists for discipline
under Rule #6 because it was the clear
intent of the Grievant to threaten the coworker.
A picture posted in the break
room by the Grievant was offensive and
was intended to threaten and intimidate
the co-worker. However, just cause
does not exist for removal. The
evidence fails to indicate that during the
confrontation in the break room the
Grievant engaged in any menacing or
threatening behavior toward the coworker.
The co-worker’s initial
response to the posting of the picture
failed to demonstrate any fear or
apprehension on his part. In fact, his
reaction in directly confronting the
Grievant in the break room underscores
his combative nature, and was
inconsistent with someone allegedly in
fear or apprehension. The Arbitrator
took into consideration several
mitigating factors. None of the
Grievant’s allegations against the coworker
were investigated. The facts are
unrefuted that the Employer failed to
provide any documents or witness list