The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) has a call-back provision that states:

In the event a patrol officer or road sergeant calls off sick, bringing the staffing for a shift below the required minimum, a list of on-call personnel to be ordered-in will be established.  This list will be referred to if the standard procedure of offering the overtime to volunteers within a thirty-minute call-in period does not fill the vacancy.

The department works twelve (12) hour shifts and utilizes 4 teams (2 day teams and 2 night teams). The CBA specifies that one member of each team is to be designated as on-call each day of the month. After the monthly schedule is posted, the members have seven (7) days to sign up for the days they will be available to be ordered in. This process makes each employee responsible for approximately four (4) days each month to be on-call for the opposite shift.

On the day in question, two (2) officers were supervising prisoners at the hospital leaving a gap in coverage on the road. The Sergeant decided to order an officer from the opposite shift to work overtime. The Sergeant requested volunteers. After three (3) attempts to secure volunteers, no volunteers responded. The Sergeant then utilized the established call-in list to order in the Grievant. The Grievant questioned why he was ordered since the staff shortage was not the result of a sick call-off.  The Grievant came to work for two (2) hours, received his minimum call-in pay of four (4) hours, and filed a grievance.

The Union argued that the Grievant is an 11-year veteran and not the junior member of the shift. The need for overtime was not because of a sick call-off.  The past practice of the department was to fill vacant positions not caused by sick leave with the least senior (junior) officer after attempting to obtain a volunteer. The parties agreed to use the established call-list for instances when an officer or sergeant calls off sick.  All other practices of ordering in officers were not changed.  The Union also argued that during recent contract negotiations, the City attempted to expand the order-in procedure used during sick leave instances to be utilized for other situations. However, negotiations failed to change the contract language.

The City relied on management rights to assign work to employees as allowing it to order the Grievant to work overtime. The Union argued that the contract was specific that the call-in procedure for overtime caused by sick leave could not be used in other situations.

The Arbitrator agreed with the Union that the call-in language utilized by the Sergeant was inappropriate. The list the Sergeant utilized was reserved only for overtime caused by members calling in sick. The City had attempted to expand the scope of the article in question, but failed to do so during negotiations, resulting in the classic rubric of not achieving in arbitration what failed in negotiations, as applying in the instant case.

Grievance sustained. A cease-and-desist order was issued.

Employer:  City of Tallmadge                         Date:  December 2022