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. 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.
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. 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. When the Grievant was treated for back problem's on July 7, 1993, she received medication for her pain. The medication was motrin, 800 mg. and morflex, 100 mg. These had an adverse effect upon Xx. Xxxxxx. They made her sleepy and incapable of calling-in. Furthermore, she had a bona-fide belief that she did not have to call-in due to the language of the Agreement. On July 15, 1993 Xx. Xxxxxx came to the Warrensville facility and provided documentation that she would be absent to July 26. 1993. The Employer knew the duration of her expected absence. To discharge her under these circumstances is impermissible in the Union's opinion. The Union points to Xx. Xxxxxx' history of discipline. During the course of her employment at Warrensville she worked in the Dietary Department. While in Dietary she was the recipient of continual discipline. For ten months she worked in the Housekeeping Department. During that period, no discipline was incurred. There existed an environment of hostility to Xx. Xxxxxx in the Dietary Department. In essence, the Union urges this discipline be viewed as an attempt to "get" Xx. Xxxxxx. As such, it should be set aside and the Grievant restored to employment with all pay and benefits provided to her. Discussion: The terms of the May 14, 1993 Last Chance Agreement are very specific. They provide that:
