by Contract Number (PDF) - OCSEA

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