by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

Bureau of Employment Services, had received an
excessive number of personal telephone calls
from a private investigator. The Ohio Highway
Patrol conducted an investigation in which the
supervisor turned over 130-150 notes from the
grievant’s work area and it was discovered that
the grievant had disclosed information to three
private individuals, one of who admitted paying
the grievant. The arbitrator found that the
employer proved that the grievant violated Ohio
Revised Code section 4141.21 by disclosing
confidential information for personal gain. The
agency policy for this violation calls for removal.
The employer’s evidence was uncontroverted
and consisted of the investigating patrolman’s
testimony, transcribed interviews of those who
received the information, and the grievant’s
supervisor’s testimony. The grievant’s 13 years
seniority was an insufficient mitigating
circumstance and the grievance was denied. 408
While on disability leave in October 1990 the
grievant, a Youth Leader, was arrested in Texas
for possession of cocaine. After his return to
work, he was sentenced to probation and he was
fined. He was then arrested in Ohio for drugrelated
domestic violence for which he pleaded
guilty in June 1991 and received treatment in
lieu of a conviction. The grievant was removed
for his off-duty conduct. The grievant’s guilty
plea in Texas was taken as an admission against
interest by the arbitrator and the arbitrator also
considered the grievant’s guilty plea to drug
related domestic violence. The arbitrator found
that the grievant’s job as a Youth Leader was
affected by his off-duty drug offenses because of
his coworkers’ knowledge of the incidents. The
employer was found not to have violated the
contract by delaying discipline until after the
proceedings in Texas had concluded, as the
contract permits delays pending criminal
proceedings. No procedural errors ere found
despite the fact that the employer did not inform
the grievant of its investigation of him, nor
permit him to enter an EAP to avoid discipline.
No disparate treatment was proven as the
employees compared to the grievant were
involved in alcohol related incidents which were
found to be different than drug-related offenses.
Thus, the grievance was denied. 410
The grievant was a Corrections Officer who had
an alcohol dependency problem of which the
employer was aware. He had been charged twice
for Driving Under the Influence, which caused
him to miss work and he received a verbal
reprimand. The grievant was absent from work
from May 18th through the 21 st and was
removed for mob abandonment. The arbitrator
found that the grievant’s removal following a
verbal reprimand was neither progressive nor
commensurate and did not give notice to the
grievant of the seriousness of his situation. It was
also noted that progressive discipline and the
EAP provision operate together under the
contract. The grievant was reinstated pursuant to
a last chance agreement with no back pay and the
period he was off work is to be considered a
suspension. 413
The grievant was removed for failing to report
off, or attend a paid, mandatory four-hour
training session on a Saturday. The grievant had
received 2 written reprimands and three
suspensions within the 3 years prior to the
incident. The arbitrator found that removal
would be proper but for the mitigation factors
present. The grievant had 23 years of service,
and her supervisors testified that she was a
competent employee. The arbitrator noted the
surrounding circumstances of the grievance; the
grievant was a mature black woman and the
supervisor was a young white male and the
absence was caused by an embarrassing medical
condition. The removal was reduced to a 30 day
suspension and the grievant was ordered to
enroll in an EAP and the arbitrator retained
jurisdiction regarding the last chance agreement.
422
The grievant was a LPN who had been assaulted
by a patient at the Pauline Lewis Center and she
had to be off work due to her injuries for
approximately 1 month. When she returned she
was assigned to the same work area. She
informed her supervisor that she could not work
in the same work area, and was told to go home
if she could not work. The grievant offered to
switch with another employee whom she
identified, but the supervisor refused. She then
told her supervisor she was going home but
instead switched work assignments. The grievant
had prior discipline including two 6 day
suspensions for neglect of duty. The supervisor
concluded that the grievant was given a direct
order to work in her original work area. The
grievant erroneously believed that switching
assignments was permitted. Despite the
grievant’s motivation for her action, the
grievant’s prior discipline warranted removal,
thus the grievance was denied. 424