Arbitration Summary and Award Log s2

ARBITRATION SUMMARY AND AWARD LOG OCB AWARD NUMBER: #1546

OCB GRIEVANCE NUMBER: 30-01-20001228-0004-05-02

GRIEVANT NAME: Katrina Miaudi

UNION: FOP2

DEPARTMENT: Taxation

ARBITRATOR: Robert G. Stein

MANAGEMENT ADVOCATE: Tim Stauffer

2ND CHAIR: Shirley Turrell

UNION ADVOCATE: Paul Cox

ARBITRATION DATE: November, 5, 2001

DECISION DATE: December 21, 2001

DECISION: MODIFIED

CONTRACT SECTIONS: 19.01, 19.05

HOLDING: The Arbitrator held that the Grievant was not responsible for failing to inform the Employer of her whereabouts after the first seminar ended, but that she was responsible for failing to inform the Employer of her whereabouts after the second seminar ended. The Arbitrator reduced the three-day suspension to a one-day suspension.

COST: $ SUBJECT: ARB SUMMARY #1546

TO: ALL ADVOCATES

FROM: MICHAEL P. DUCO

AGENCY: Department of Taxation UNION: FOP 2 ARBITRATOR: Robert G. Stein STATE ADVOCATE: Tim Stauffer UNION ADVOCATE: Paul Cox BNA CODES: 118.01 – Discipline in General; 118.08 – Suspension in General

Grievance is MODIFIED.

The Grievant was suspended for three days when she failed to notify the Employer that seminars she had attended on two occasions ended early. On July 21, the Grievant attended a five-day seminar. On July 27, the Grievant attended a three day seminar. Both seminars ended approximately three to four hours early on each of the final days. The Grievant did not return to work or notify her supervisor that the seminars had ended early. The Grievant made no request for leave to cover the time for which she was not at the seminar. Although the Grievant’s supervisor recommended that discipline be initiated as early as July 24, the Employer did not notify the Grievant that she should have either returned to the office or requested leave to cover her absence prior to the second seminar.

The Employer argued the Grievant engaged in a patter of behavior which led to this suspension. The Grievant had been disciplined three times in a nine month period for similar violations. Because the discipline was progressive, the Employer asked that it be upheld in its entirety.

The Union argued that the Grievant had permission from Management to attend the seminars and that any extra time was spent traveling to and from the seminars. The Union also claimed that the Grievant spent some of the extra time discussing seminar topics with other participants. Finally, the Union also claimed that there was no formal procedure which required employees to return to the office if a seminar ended early.

The Arbitrator modified the three-day suspension to a one-day suspension. The Arbitrator could not understand why the Employer failed to notify the Grievant of her error prior to the conclusion of the second seminar. He reasoned, “the Employer enabled the Grievant’s conduct by not informing her of the error of her ways.” He excluded the violation which occurred after the July 27 seminar. However, the Arbitrator found the Grievant had the responsibility to inform her supervisor of her whereabouts while she is working and that she “was wrong in assuming she had the right to simply go home and not contact management while ‘on the clock.’” Because the Arbitrator found the Employer could discipline the Grievant for only one incident, he modified the discipline to a one- day suspension.