Position of the Union. It is the position of the union that Public Act 112 of 1994 does not apply to the provisions in Article 26 concerning the use of substitute and temporary staff, and therefore, the provisions should not be removed from the contract.
Position of the Union. According to the Union the discharge under review in this proceeding fails to meet the contractually established test of "just cause." At Section 29.03 the Agreement provides that an employee on sick leave is to notify the Employer "at the start and end of such period." Xx. Xxxxxx met the contractual standard of notice. Discussion: The terms of the May 14, 1993 Last Chance Agreement are very specific. They provide that:
Position of the Union. It is asserted that the Grievants took a refresher course after they were reappointed following the end of their disability leave, and that under 13.2(B) the Sheriff was responsible for the cost and the time. Further, it is denied that the Grievants were negligent, so as to fall within the exception to the requirement that the Sheriff pay for the refresher courses. It is emphasized that the Grievants maintained their seniority when they returned to work. Also, the bargaining history is said to support the Union’s position. POSITION OF THE EMPLOYER It is argued that the Grievants were no longer employees when their certification lapsed after the year that they were on a disability retirement. The Sheriff argues that 13.2(B) applies only to members, and that since the Grievants weren’t members, the Sheriff was not required to pay for the refresher course. Further, the Sheriff argues that the Grievants were negligent in not maintaining their certification, and consequently the contract required them to pay for the refresher course. DISCUSSION The Grievants meet the initial requirements for an employer-paid refresher course pursuant to the plain meaning of paragraph 2(B) of Article 13. The Grievants had current certification that had to be refreshed, and the State of Ohio and the Sheriff permitted them to operate, and they did operate, as certified police officers (POTC) on patrol at the time that they sought to take the refresher
Position of the Union. The Union first said that the language was clear and that “any unused sick leave days” had a very general meaning and included the unused sick leave days which employees had accumulated as of the beginning of the collective agreement. In the alternative, if the provision was ambiguous, the Union said that the evidence of the negotiations, of the Memorandum of Agreement, of the parties' agreement on the number of sick leave days and the value of the payments for those days, and of the agreement to defer the payment until the Employer had an opportunity to pursue a contribution from Diversicare, all clearly pointed to the parties' intention that the Employer pay for the sick leave days which employees had accumulated as of April 1, 1996.
02 a) required the payment of sick leave days accrued as of April 1, 1996. The Union sought an order for payment for all those days which had not been used as sick time or otherwise paid out and for interest to be paid on those amounts from the date of the grievance or from the end of the agreement The Union also asked that I remain seised. In reply to the Employer’s submissions, the Union said the Employer’s claim that the provision was clear supported the Union’s alternative argument that it was ambiguous. In addition, the Union said that the Employer’s submission that the parties had not resolved the issue of what was to happen to the sick leave accumulated as of the beginning of the collective agreement simply could not stand. The parties had resolved all issues and it was my task as arbitrator to determine what the parties had agreed upon.
