ARBITRATION SUMMARY AND AWARD LOG

OCB AWARD NUMBER: 1189

OCB GRIEVANCE NUMBER: / 27-11-19960521-0456-06-10-S
GRIEVANT NAME: / PARIZEK, WILLIAM
UNION: / OEA
DEPARTMENT: / REHAB. & CORR.
ARBITRATOR: / WEATHERSPOON, FLOYD
MANAGEMENT ADVOCATE: / BURRUS, DAVID
2ND CHAIR:
UNION ADVOCATE:
ARBITRATION DATE: / 11/26/1996
DECISION DATE: / 2/7/1997
DECISION: / DENIED
CONTRACT SECTIONS:

HOLDING:

COST:

SUBJECT: / ARB SUMMARY #1189
TO: / ALL ADVOCATES
FROM: / KENNETH COUCH
AGENCY: / REHAB. & CORR.
UNION: / OEA
ARBITRATOR: / WEATHERSPOON, FLOYD
STATE ADVOCATE: / BURRUS, DAVID
UNION ADVOCATE:
BNA CODES: / 118.01 / Discipline-In General
118.6516 / Neglect Of Duty

Grievance was DENIED.

The Grievant is as a vocational teacher at the Lebanon Correctional Institution (LCI). An altercation occurred in the Grievant's vocational shop between two inmates. The Grievant did not report the altercation to his supervisor until approximately two weeks later. The Grievant also failed to take the inmates to the infirmary. Furthermore, one of the inmates was not assigned to that area, and therefore, was out of place. The Employer charged the Grievant with violating the Employer's Standards of Employee Conduct - Rule 40 and gave the Grievant a one day suspension.

The Union claimed that the Employer failed to meet the seven tests for just cause and did not follow principles of progressive discipline. The Union also raised several procedural objections in regard to the disciplinary procedure the Employer followed. Finally, the Union argued the Grievant was the only employee to be disciplined even though someone else permitted the inmate to be out of place and a code 3 alarm was not answered. The Employer, on the other hand, argued that the Grievant failed to follow institutional procedures jeopardizing the safety and security of the institution. The Grievant failed to issue a conduct report on the inmates involved in the fight, failed to have them medically examined, and failed to separate and isolate the inmates after the altercation.

The Arbitrator dismissed the Union's procedural objections as having no merit. The Arbitrator held that the Grievant had notice of Rule 40 and should have understood the importance of the Rule to protect the safety of the institution. The Employer conducted the investigation fairly and the Grievant admitted as true the facts regarding the incident as found by the Hearing Officer. The Arbitrator stated that to have just cause "the employer must show that there is credible and substantive proof that the employee committed the act for which he is being [disciplined]." Furthermore, the Grievant did not provide any evidence or testimony that the incident did not occur as presented by management. The Arbitrator held just because the Grievant was disciplined does not automatically prove that the Employer treated the Grievant unfairly. The Employer may provide a valid reason for only disciplining one of its employees and not others. The Employer was well within the boundaries for discipline under Rule 40 (ranging from warning to removal) and no evidence tended to show that the Employer abused its discretion.