by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

“initiated as soon as reasonably possible consistent with the requirements of the other provisions of this article.” Where the grievant had continued to work for 1 ½ months after the offense before being terminated, “this, in itself, tends to raise questions regarding management’s view of [the grievant’s] actions as sufficient to warrant termination. 212 Under 24.01, all discipline of any nature whatsoever is to be measured against just cause. Under 24.02 most discipline must be progressive and follow four steps. The requirements are separate and distinct, but just cause is the overriding consideration. Progressive discipline cannot subsume just cause. The disciplinary priorities are the other way around. In other words, the fact that the employer strictly follows progressive-discipline steps does not automatically assure that any or all of the disciplinary impositions will be or just cause; and discipline is not for just cause unless it is corrective. Progressive penalties which are demonstrably punitive and noncorrective will be set aside by arbitrators. 213 If the delay in providing notice of predisciplinary meeting is caused by a witness’ original refusal but later consent to testify, the delay is reasonable. 230 24.02 states that, except in extreme circumstances, discharge is not appropriate until an employee has been given 3 formal opportunities to improve his conduct. 232 The disciplinary progression is not the whole substance of just cause. 232 Two days is not too little time for the employer to have considered the Union’s case as put forth at the pre-disciplinary hearing. 243 The arbitrator found that delay in implementing discipline represented due consideration of the issues by specialized staff and higher authority rather than unwarranted delay. 243 The state did not violate 24.02 when it did not initiate the removal right away. The state held a predisciplinary meeting for a minor suspension and then, as more facts were uncovered, determined that the incident was more serious and decided the grievant should be removed. The arbitrator determined that the disciplinary action was initiated as soon as reasonably possible. 257 Discipline was not initiated as soon as reasonably possible where the grievant was seen sleeping on duty on June 10 and June 28, the pre-disciplinary meeting was held on July 18, and the removal notice was isued on July 25. The arbitrator said that while he appreciated the employer’s concern with due process, the time periods seem excessive and unreasonable. 270 When the employer claimed that he grievant’s AWOL was the cause of the delay in initiating discipline, the arbitrator rejected the justification because the employer did not introduce a request for leave form or other documents suggesting that it refused this request. 270 Given a history of treating sleeping as an offense subject to the progressive disciplinary approach, the union reasonably expected the employer to grant the grievant a chance to learn form his mistake. The employer violated 24.02 by failing to follow principles of progressive discipline. This grievant had no prior discipline, in the past the employer had suspended rather than removed employees with spotty disciplinary records. 276 The concept of just cause entails progressive discipline, that is the inherent right of an employee to be specifically informed of perceived deficiencies and to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to rectify the problem. 288 The sequence from verbal to written reprimand, suspension and termination is indeed a progressive disciplinary approach and directly follows the chain contemplated by Article 24. 288 The five months between the alleged abuse of an inmate by the grievant and the discharge may seem to violate Article 24.02 which sets the standard as requiring the employer to act with as much dispatch “as reasonably possible.” In this case the arbitrator found that management did act as quickly as statutory procedures allowed and the grievant’s case was aided by the delay, not hampered by it. 292 The arbitrator decided there was not just cause for termination of the grievant for abuse. The grievant did fail to report his own use of physical force and to report another employee’s abusive actions. Although these are serious violations, removal would not follow the Agreement’s
progressive and commensurate discipline criteria. 308 Although alteration of payroll records is a serious offense, one for which the grievant received a three day suspension in the past, removal is neither commensurate nor progressive. There were mitigating factors. The grievant was a nine year employee who does quality work and is highly skilled. The grievant also trained others and received various citations for his work. 318 While progressive discipline is the general goal, the Union and the employer both know that certain offenses are so serious that progressive discipline is unwarranted. Drug related offenses in the prison setting fit this criteria. The claim that bringing drugs onto state property lacks the proper nexus between the job and the offense is dismissed. The drugs were readily available to the grievant’s from the parking lit and thus readily available to the inmates. Grievants had a clear opportunity to transport drugs inside the prison walls. 334 The arbitrator was firmly convinced the grievant lied under oath. This was a tactical error on the grievant’s part. Had he been candid and remorseful concerning his misconduct, his attitude would have been relevant on the question of whether or not the contractual goal of discipline – correction – could have been accomplished through the progressive policy outlined in Section 24.02 of the Agreement. Remorse might have compelled greater moderation of the disciplinary penalty than will be awarded. 342 A long and good work record normally provides an employee a reservoir of leniency. Some violations are so violent or so inconsistent with the fundamentals of the employment relationship as to warrant ending it summarily regardless of he individual’s work history or seniority. The grievant striking a foreman three times with a shovel fell into this category and only extraordinary mitigation (such as proven insanity) would insulate him against removal. 357 There are mitigating factors in the grievant’s offense of procuring a school bus driver’s license through fraud. The grievant has been employed for fourteen years with only a verbal reprimand for being tardy in 1990. The grievant also never used the license to drive a school bus for hire. The grievant’s photo along with a record of the criminal charge in the newspapers has harmed the grievant and he has learned a costly and painful lesson. The grievant was reinstated but the period of time from his removal to his reinstatement was considered a suspension with no seniority accumulating during that time. 361 The grievant was a Corrections Officer and had received and signed for a copy of the agency’s work rules which prohibit relationships with inmates. The grievant told the warden that she had been in a relationship with an inmate prior to her hiring as a CO. Telephone records showed that the grievant had received 197 calls from the inmate which lasted over 134 hours. Although the grievant extended no favoritism toward the inmate, just cause was found for the removal. 374 The grievant had received up to a ten day suspension and had been enrolled in two EAP programs. She was late to work for the third time within a pay period. The arbitrator found that just cause did exist for the removal as the grievant had received four prior disciplinary actions for absenteeism and the employer had warned her of possible removal. The fact that the employer reduced the most recent discipline did not lead to the conclusion that the employer must start the progressive discipline process over. 376 The grievant was a thirteen year employee who developed absenteeism problems. In just over one year he received discipline up to and including a fifteen day suspension. Between December 1990 and March 1991 the grievant had eighteen unexplained absence related incidents for which he was remove. The arbitrator found that the employer proved that the grievant failed to account for his activities at work and that progressive discipline was followed. The arbitrator noted that while the grievant was a great deal of freedom while working, he must follow the employer’s work rules. The grievance was denied. 381 The grievant attended a pre-disciplinary hearing for absenteeism at which his removal was recommended, but deferred pending completion of his EAP. He failed to complete his EAP and was absent from December 28, 1990 to February 11, 1991. The grievant was then requested to attend a meeting with a union representative to discuss his absence and failure to complete his
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 and 8:
in Article 24.04 as a meeting. The
Page 9 and 10:
Article 2.01 requires that neither
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: The parties did not intend that pre
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?