by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
progressive and commensurate discipline<br />
criteria. 308<br />
Although alteration of payroll records is a<br />
serious offense, one for which the grievant<br />
received a three day suspension in the past,<br />
removal is neither commensurate nor<br />
progressive. There were mitigating factors. The<br />
grievant was a nine year employee who does<br />
quality work and is highly skilled. The grievant<br />
also trained others and received various citations<br />
for his work. 318<br />
While progressive discipline is the general goal,<br />
the Union and the employer both know that<br />
certain offenses are so serious that progressive<br />
discipline is unwarranted. Drug related offenses<br />
in the prison setting fit this criteria. The claim<br />
that bringing drugs onto state property lacks the<br />
proper nexus between the job and the offense is<br />
dismissed. The drugs were readily available to<br />
the grievant’s from the parking lit and thus<br />
readily available to the inmates. Grievants had a<br />
clear opportunity to transport drugs inside the<br />
prison walls. 334<br />
The arbitrator was firmly convinced the grievant<br />
lied under oath. This was a tactical error on the<br />
grievant’s part. Had he been candid and<br />
remorseful concerning his misconduct, his<br />
attitude would have been relevant on the<br />
question of whether or not the contractual goal of<br />
discipline – correction – could have been<br />
accomplished through the progressive policy<br />
outlined in Section 24.02 of the Agreement.<br />
Remorse might have compelled greater<br />
moderation of the disciplinary penalty than will<br />
be awarded. 342<br />
A long and good work record normally provides<br />
an employee a reservoir of leniency. Some<br />
violations are so violent or so inconsistent with<br />
the fundamentals of the employment relationship<br />
as to warrant ending it summarily regardless of<br />
he individual’s work history or seniority. The<br />
grievant striking a foreman three times with a<br />
shovel fell into this category and only<br />
extraordinary mitigation (such as proven<br />
insanity) would insulate him against removal.<br />
357<br />
There are mitigating factors in the grievant’s<br />
offense of procuring a school bus driver’s license<br />
through fraud. The grievant has been employed<br />
for fourteen years with only a verbal reprimand<br />
for being tardy in 1990. The grievant also never<br />
used the license to drive a school bus for hire.<br />
The grievant’s photo along with a record of the<br />
criminal charge in the newspapers has harmed<br />
the grievant and he has learned a costly and<br />
painful lesson. The grievant was reinstated but<br />
the period of time from his removal to his<br />
reinstatement was considered a suspension with<br />
no seniority accumulating during that time. 361<br />
The grievant was a Corrections Officer and had<br />
received and signed for a copy of the agency’s<br />
work rules which prohibit relationships with<br />
inmates. The grievant told the warden that she<br />
had been in a relationship with an inmate prior to<br />
her hiring as a CO. Telephone records showed<br />
that the grievant had received 197 calls from the<br />
inmate which lasted over 134 hours. Although<br />
the grievant extended no favoritism toward the<br />
inmate, just cause was found for the removal.<br />
374<br />
The grievant had received up to a ten day<br />
suspension and had been enrolled in two EAP<br />
programs. She was late to work for the third time<br />
within a pay period. The arbitrator found that<br />
just cause did exist for the removal as the<br />
grievant had received four prior disciplinary<br />
actions for absenteeism and the employer had<br />
warned her of possible removal. The fact that the<br />
employer reduced the most recent discipline did<br />
not lead to the conclusion that the employer must<br />
start the progressive discipline process over. 376<br />
The grievant was a thirteen year employee who<br />
developed absenteeism problems. In just over<br />
one year he received discipline up to and<br />
including a fifteen day suspension. Between<br />
December 1990 and March 1991 the grievant<br />
had eighteen unexplained absence related<br />
incidents for which he was remove. The<br />
arbitrator found that the employer proved that the<br />
grievant failed to account for his activities at<br />
work and that progressive discipline was<br />
followed. The arbitrator noted that while the<br />
grievant was a great deal of freedom while<br />
working, he must follow the employer’s work<br />
rules. The grievance was denied. 381<br />
The grievant attended a pre-disciplinary hearing<br />
for absenteeism at which his removal was<br />
recommended, but deferred pending completion<br />
of his EAP. He failed to complete his EAP and<br />
was absent from December 28, 1990 to February<br />
11, 1991. The grievant was then requested to<br />
attend a meeting with a union representative to<br />
discuss his absence and failure to complete his