by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

emedy the parties mutually agreed on several occasions to extend the arbitrator's jurisdiction over the case. The Arbitrator clarified the remedy by ordering the following: 1. The grievants were entitled to missed overtime opportunities 2. The State was required to pay a total of $684.60 for outstanding medical bills for the second grievant's children. 3. The second grievant's current assignment was to remain the same for up to 30 calendar days to allow him an opportunity to obtain an Ohio drivers, license 4. The grievants were not entitled to roll call pay. 481 (1992-94 contract) The Arbitrator rejected the Union’s argument that it was not progressive discipline to remove the grievant because his driver’s license was suspended, he failed to get a modification order allowing limited driving privileges, and he was unable to perform his job. 486 (1992-94 contract) Prior to her suspension, the grievant applied for disability leave. As originally scheduled the grievant's suspension would have occurred during her "waiting period" for her disability and would have consequently "broken" that period. As a result, she would have lost the effect of the period in the determination of her eligibility for disability. Therefore, RSC changed the dates of the grievant's suspension to accommodate the "waiting period" for her disability leave. At the same time the grievant was notified of this change in her suspension, she received notification that 2 days of her disability pay were canceled due to the fact that an employee is prohibited from receiving disability pay during a period of suspension. The Arbitrator found that the grievant did not lose any disability pay because of thechange in suspension dates. Furthermore, she had no leave balances during this suspension period. As a result, the length of the grievant's suspension period (20 days or 13 days) had no effect on the grievant losing any money. The arbitrator held, however, that if the entire reduction in suspension is nullified, management is not penalized for its procedural misconduct which prejudiced the grievant. Therefore, the grievant is entitled to two days back pay, not as a make whole remedy, but as a penalty to management. 562 (1994-97 contract) The argument that progressive discipline must be followed at each step of every type of rules infraction is not accurate. Discipline for serious cases of insubordination and abuse directed toward patients and supervisors does not necessarily have to follow the progressive discipline rules as set in the Contract. 572 Where the grievant misplaced his security equipment in an area not accessible to inmates for a short time, the Arbitrator determined the employer did not have just cause to suspend the grievant for ten days. 578 (1994-97 contract) The grievant was removed for patient abuse. A patient was injured after an alleged altercation with the grievant. A medical examination revealed that the patient had a small hematoma on the back of his head. The witnesses, including two co-workers and a patient, testified that the grievant grabbed the patient by the neck and slammed his head into a concrete block wall. The Arbitrator found that the testimony of the coworkers and one patient all supported the employer's case. The witnesses were also all found to be credible and any inconsistencies in their testimony were minor. In addition, the grievant himself admitted that he committed some wrongdoing. Therefore, the Arbitrator determined that there was just cause to remove the grievant. 579 (1994-97 contract) The grievant had been disciplined on ten (10) occasions in a period from June 1989 to March 1994. The allegations included six for unexcused absences, one for tardiness, one for falsification of an official document and two for being away from his work area without authorization. This case involved two separate incidents. Both incidents resulted in charges that the grievant engaged in willful falsification of an official document and leaving the work area without authorization (unexcused absence). Since the grievant's last discipline for a similar offense was a fifteen day suspension, the Arbitrator determined that the appropriate progressive discipline for the unexcused absence in question was a twenty day suspension. Considering the grievant's past record it is obvious that progressive discipline has not been successful. Regarding the charge of falsification of an official document, the employer presented sufficient evidence to support its claim that the grievant's removal was for just cause. 588 (1994-97 contract) The grievant was discharged for making threatening, intimidating, coercing and abusive
language toward a number of inmates. The Union argued that the employer violated Article 24 because the discipline was not progressive and commensurate with the offense. The Arbitrator held that the circumstances surrounding the removal, combined with the nature of the speech, justified the removal. 589 (1994-97 contract) Management presented substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony, that the grievant used excessive force and assaulted a youth inmate. From the evidence and testimony introduced at the hearing, a complete review of the record, including pertinent contract provisions, it was the Arbitrator's judgment that the grievant was removed for just cause. 595 (1994-97 contract) The grievant, accused of misusing a state vehicle, admitted the misconduct and waived his right to a pre-disciplinary hearing. He subsequently received a ten day suspension. The Union contended that management violated Article 24.02 by waiting one year after the conclusion of the criminal investigation to initiate the discipline. The Arbitrator held that management complied with the contract by waiting until after the disposition of the criminal investigation because the contract specifically provides for this. 598 (1994-97 contract) The grievant filed for PERS disability retirement on March 14, 1994 after learning that his State disability payments would cease. During this time, the State attempted to get him to file the forms necessary to cover his absence in compliance with department leave policies and the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The State eventually issued an AWOL notice and a written direct order to the grievant due to his failure to comply with the proper procedures. The grievant failed to meet the requirements for unpaid leave, the State sought a proper leave request. The grievant failed to respond. After learning that the grievant's disability benefit appeal had failed, the State issued another AWOL notice and instituted disciplinary proceedings. As a result, the grievant was removed for insubordination and AWOL violations. The Union notified the State that it was taking the case to arbitration, but before the hearing, PERS notified the grievant that his disability retirement was approved effective six days before the effective date of his removal. The Arbitrator concluded that although discipline was justified, removal was unreasonably severe under the unusual circumstances of this case. The Arbitrator held that a major suspension was in order with the understanding that if the grievant returns to work when fit to do so, it will be on a last chance basis. 601 (1994-97 contract) The grievant was informed that she was being removed from her post for good management reasons based on several letters of complaint from visitors to the facility. The Arbitrator further concluded that management’s decision to pull and move the grievant met the good management reasons standard. The grievant’s removal from her bid position was not arbitrary or capricious, but was based upon incidents reported by two visitors and the warden’s own observation of the grievant. It appears that management simply believed that public relations would be improved by moving the grievant. 602 (1994-97 contract) The grievant allegedly had repeated sexual contact with an inmate. After the relationship allegedly soured, the inmate twice reported that an affair had occurred. Article 24.02 requires that the employer follow the principles of progressive discipline and that disciplinary action be commensurate with the offense. The Arbitrator held that the grievant’s repeated violations were so flagrant and appalling as to leave no room for corrective discipline. Even without the lascivious aspects of this case, the Arbitrator emphasized that by repeatedly placing not only herself but also the other employees on her shift in dangerous situations, the grievant demonstrated that she could not perform the fundamental duties of er position. Progressive and corrective discipline, therefore, was not appropriate. 604 (1994-97 contract) Article 24.02 requires that the employer follow the principles of progressive corrective discipline and that disciplinary action be commensurate with the offense. The Arbitrator held that operating a state vehicle at excessive speeds while under the influence of alcohol was not a minor incident that would justify progressive discipline but was serious enough to provide just cause for the grievant’s removal. 605 (1994-97 contract) The grievant accepted a $400 loan from the resident of the Ohio Veterans Home. The grievant agreed to repay the loan upon receipt of her income tax refund. The resident contacted the grievant's administrator in order to obtain 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 and 92: The parties did not intend that pre
Page 93 and 94: progressive and commensurate discip
Page 95 and 96: Bureau of Employment Services, had
Page 97: jurisdiction to resolve differences
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?