Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1216th csc minutes1216th REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1216th Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, September 21, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Also Present: Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works Kimberly Buchholz -Lewis, Construction Worker II Elizabeth Duggan, Accountant II Arica Flores, Construction Worker II Linda Grimsby, City Treasurer Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Doug Haskin, Roads and Traffic Supervisor James Hirst, Equipment Operator III Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II Alfred Johnson, Equipment Operator II Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian Ronald E. Campau Charles Locke, Water Operations Mechanic II Bonnie Melnik, Account Clerk II Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian Dennis Pluff, Equipment Operator II Ruthann Saylor, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Steve Schoonover, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debbie Seeman, AFSCME Union Local 192 Secretary Norm Siira, Equipment Operator III James Sturgill, Engineering Assistant I Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-147 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1215th Regular Meeting held Wednesday, August 24, 2005, be approved as submitted. The Commission received and fled the Status of Temporary Employees Report for August 2005. The Commission received and fled the Non -Resident Report as of August 1, 2005. Robert Biga, Human Resources Director stated that a new report has been added showing all the non-residents, noljust those that are required by law to have waivers. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-148 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 11, 2005, from James Andres, Chief Accountant, as approved for submission by Michael Slater, Director of Finance, requesting an extension of the three-year Page 2 121 blh Regular Meeting September 21, 2W5 retirement limit for excess vacation accrual, the Civil Sewice Commission does hereby approve this request with the understanding that Mr. Andres be required to not exceed fifty-seven (57) eight (8) hour accrued vacation days for payout purposes in anticipation of his retirement date on or before December 31, 2008. Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 presented a request by Mona Mason, Equipment Operator I, for an extension of an unpaid medical leave of absence and he wished the Commission would honor Ms. Mason's request. He referenced the medical documentation Ms. Mason provided and her letter requesting the extension dated September 1, 2005, at 1:38 p.m. Mr. Grzembski stated Ms. Mason was an employee at the time she submitted these documents and he further stated they just learned about her dismissal the other day and they hadn't received the paperwork. Ms. Mason was asking for this extension based on her doctors diagnosis and she has worked here since 1996. She ran out of sick time and if she had been a 20 -year employee, this wouldn't be an issue right now. He continued by stating if someone is sick, they are just waiting to get well so they can return to work. Mr. Tatigian explained that she had been terminated by the department. Mr. Grzembski stated she wasn't terminated when she requested this and what she was asking for in her letter was for an extension and if it was extended it to the date of her dismissal, he guessed that would be fine too. She was an employee, she is ill, she still wants to work here and be an employee. Local 192 will be fling a grievance appealing the termination of her employment. Local 192 is fling a grievance on another item, however, she just wishes for this extension as needed, one way or another. He reiterated if she had been a 20 -year employee, she would have had enough sick time in the bank to continue her employment and it wouldn't even be a question right now. Ms. Mahoney stated Mr. Grzembski needed to understand that the rule can't operate on those "ifs," she was not a 20 -year employee, so that can't be part of what we do relative this. Mr. Grzembski said that the consideration should be her doctors report and that's based on why she is asking for the leave of absence. Ms. Mahoney inquired if this was the individual that was granted the extension at the previous meeting. Mr. Grzembski stated yes. Mr. Biga explained that this individual has exhausted her FMLA time under federal law in July. The Commission approved a leave of absence through September 7th at the August 24th meeting. She was told she should return to work on September 6th. She submitted a request from her doctor indicating she could not return to work and the Department has indicated they are not recommending a continuation of the leave of absence and they want to proceed with the termination of her employment, which they have done. Mr. Grzembski stated he hoped they wouldn't expect someone to return against medical advice. Ms. Mahoney stated she didn't know that they are making the decision to return against medical advice, but the fact of the matter is that with the exhaustion of all Ms. Mason's banks, the department made the decision, which if you choose to grieve, you're welcome to grieve. Mr. Grzembski stated that when it goes to an arbitrator, he imagined they'll probably reinstate her anyhow. He clarified that Ms. Mason was not here, she didn't want to be here, she requested that he and Ms. Lillibridge speak on her behalf. Mr. Tatigian thanked Mr. Grzembski Page 3 121 &h Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 for his presentation. Ms. Mahoney clarified that on the doctor's note, Ms. Mason was anticipated to return on October 6'h. Mr. Biga stated she could always apply for reinstatement if her condition is such that she could return to work. Mr. Tatigian inquired how long Ms. Mason had been off work. Mr. Biga responded since May of 2005. Ms. Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated she was aware another 192 employee, not in the department of Public Service, but elsewhere in City employment, who has less time in than Ms. Mason and has exhausted all her benefits. She's been off work almost a year and at least six months without any pay. Her benefits have been exhausted. It's up to the department head to make the determination to not approve a leave of absence and treat two Local 192 employees differently. The union will be fling grievances on the suspension and termination, and for the information of the City, she stated she will lay it right out there on the line, that's blatant discrimination against one employee as far as the union can look at it, and she believes an arbitrator will look at it the same way. Mr. Tatigian inquired if the other employee was in the Department of Public Works. Ms. Lillibridge stated no, the other employee was in a different department. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-149 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 1, 2005, from Mona Mason, Equipment Operator I, forwarded for submission by Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works, requesting an extension of an unpaid medical leave of absence, and having had discussion with Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, and Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny Ms. Mason's request for an extension of unpaid medical leave of absence_ Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-150 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 6, 2005, from Geraldine George, Clerk -Typist I, as approved for submission by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve Ms. George's request for an extension of an unpaid medical leave of absence for an additional ninety (90) days from September 7, 2005. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-151 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 13, 2005, from Elizabeth Duggan, Accountant II, as approved for submission by Michael T. Slater, Director of Finance, requesting clarification on health insurance benefits upon her retirement, and having had discussion with Ms. Duggan, the Civil Service Commission does hereby refer this to the Board of Trustees for their action. Page 121 6th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-152 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 1, 2005, from Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian, requesting a promotional examination for Library Aide II and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia, who, by the closing dale of this announcement are: Currently employed in the Library Department; and Have regular status as a Library Aide I. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test -40% Interview -40% Departmental Rating -20%` 'In the event there is only one qualified applicant for the position, the Parts of Examination and Weights will be 100% Departmental Rating. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-153 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 16, 2005, from Linda Grimsby, City Treasurer, requesting an open -competitive examination for Tax Clerk I and proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, and after discussion with Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director and Linda Grimsby, City Treasurer, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS By the closing date of the announcement, applicants must: Be a citizen of the United Slates, or a resident alien with the right to work in the United States; and Have a high school diploma or valid equivalency certificate; and Have six (6) months paid full-time work experience within the last three (3) years in property tax systems; and/or bank teller experience; and or accounting/bookkeeping experience; and Have the ability to work effectively with the public and associates. NOTE: Have Municipal Tax Accounting experience including knowledge of State Proposal A property tax laws and knowledge of Microsoft applications desired. Page 5 121 fit Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Interview -50% Written Examination -50% Background Investigation — Pass/Fail The Commission received and fled the expiring eligible list for the month of October 2005— Human Resources Director (860 o.c.) and Engineering Assistant 1 (1182 p.). Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-154 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Sign Foreman (870 o.c.). 05-155 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Police Captain (1213 p.). The Commission received and filed the following items: a. Council Resolutions from the meeting of August 15, 2005 with minutes to be approved August 31, 2005 CR 412-05 RESOLVED, that having considered a communication from the Human Resources Director, dated August 1, 2005, which bears the signature of the Director of Finance and is approved for submission by the Mayor, and which sets forth a resolution adopted by the Civil Service Commission on July 20, 2005, wherein the Commission recommended that the classification of Police Vehicle Maintenance Coordinator become a permanent full -lime unrepresented classification, to be filled through an open -competitive examination, the Council does hereby refer this matter to the Committee of the Whole for its report and recommendation. CR 413-05 RESOLVED, that having considered a communication from the Human Resources Director, dated August 1, 2005, which bears the signature of the Director of Finance and is approved for submission by the Mayor, and which sets forth a resolution adopted by the Civil Service Commission on July 20, 2005, wherein the Commission recommended that the classification of Police Service Aide be established as a permanent, full-time unrepresented classification, to be filled through an open -competitive examination, the Council does hereby refer this matter to the Committee of the Whole for its report and recommendation. b. Affirmative Action Report for August 2005. Page 6 12161h Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 05-156 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Recreation Supervisor (872 o.c.). Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated Grievances #05-09 and #05-12, regarding the snow policy have been remedied. In those grievances, the employees were requesting to use sick time and requested to charge four (4) hours of sick leave instead of using a no pay day. That time was restored to them. They were just waiting for a written response from management. Mr. Tatigian asked if OB 4, OB 5, and OB 6 could be taken together. The Union stated they could. Mr. Hoffman continued by stating AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #05-18, concerning Chris Kasprzynski, that Mr. Kasprzynski was satisfied with the Step 2 disposition after having discussion with Brian Wilson and Doug Haskin, so there was no need to proceed. Ms. Mahoney inquired if Mr. Beckley was satisfied with that to which Mr. Beckley replied no because the outcome of the next two grievances could have a bearing on the resolution of #05-18 and so it might come back. Ms. Mahoney inquired if #05-17 and #05-19 could be taken as one and the Union replied they could. Mr. Biga stated all of these grievances were referred to a Labor -Management meeting. The Union Vice -President canceled that meeting. The Vice -President stated he would submit a letter to the City indicating the Union's position on these grievances, which never happened. Consequently, these items are back on the agenda. Ms. Mahoney requested the minutes reflect Mr. Bil concern that there was less than appropriate addressing of the issues prior to coming to Civil Service Commission. Mr. Hoffman stated that with AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievances #05-17 (OB 4) and #05-19 (OB 6), the grievants were not in agreement with the Step 2 Disposition from management. Mr. Campau inquired if the disciplinary action was stricken from the records for Mr. Trybus and Ms. Jamieson. Mr. Hoffman replied not to his knowledge. Mr. Beckley clarified that the discipline was being held in abeyance and not implemented for the three (3) individuals. Mr. Campau inquired if the individuals had been reimbursed for the hours to which Mr. Beckley replied that only the four (4) hours that were in question were the subject of the first two grievances. Mr. Tatigian stated that somewhere in the packet, it seemed you reimbursed eight (8) hours to somebody. Mr. Hoffman confirmed it was for Chris Kasprzynski and that he was allowed to use eight (8) hours of his sick bank instead of having a no -pay day. Mr. Hoffman stated there was no need for reimbursement in #05-17 and #05-19. Mr. Tatigian asked why were we here? Mr. Hoffman stated Management had a partial settlement of earlier Page] 121&h Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 grievances with the adjustment of pay. Management further agreed to withdraw disciplinary letters of March 29, 2005. However, no adjustment will be made to their overtime call -out list. The two employees, Debbie Jamieson and Mark Trybus would like their overtime hours reduced back to what they were in March when the disciplinary action occurred. They could have possibly had 100 hours added to their charged overtime. It is the overtime list that decides who gets called in first. Mr. Tatigian asked for clarification. Mr. Schoonover stated that part of the punishment for Mr. Trybus and Ms. Jamieson was that because management felt they were unresponsive, they were to be put at high overtime hours, to the very top of the list. Mr. Tatigian asked if that meant they would be the first ones called. Mr. Hoffman stated they would be the very last ones called. Mr. Tatigian asked when the last time they worked overtime for snow removal was. Mr. Hoffman replied it would have been March 1, 2005, the last time we had a snow emergency. Mr. Tatigian stated he looked at their time sheets and it appeared they had hardly worked any overtime on snow removal. Mr. Hoffman explained there were some vacation issues with some of the dates that they were allegedly non-responsive or did not receive a call. Mr. Beckley confirmed they were at work on the day in question. They were asked to work overtime. They were told we were in a cycle but they chose to refuse the directive of the foreman, and left at the normal quitting time of 3:30 p.m. Ms. Mahoney stated she appreciated that answer, but her question was when there is an all- out call -out, do we reach out to people who are on vacation after you have exhausted individuals who are on that work list? Mr. Beckley replied that the general answer here is yes, but we have a set policy which we refer to as a snow policy that already assigns personnel, the regular operators, to equipment and shifts, two (2) twelve (12) hour shifts. That's put into motion as soon as the declaration of emergency is declared. So this isn't what you refer to as a call -out procedure. Mr. Beckley stated they went home on the day in question and refused the directions of their foreman. This refusal resulted in the disciplinary action. Mr. Schoonover replied both individuals worked their eight (8) hour day and they requested to opt out. Ms. Mahoney inquired how you opt out. Mr. Schoonover responded that you let your foreman know that you are going to be unavailable to work. Ms. Mahoney stated the expectation is when you take on a job that includes driving a snow plow, there will be times when the snow policy will be required. Norm Siira stated the policy was worded so that operators can opt out. Ms. Mahoney requested the audience raise their hand to keep order. Ms. Mahoney inquired who declares the emergency. Mr. Biga stated the Mayor does. Mr. Beckley clarified that the snow policy determines the staffing procedure. Ms Mahoney Page 121&h Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 continued by asking if there was an option to opt out of being a part of the emergency. Mr. Beckley replied that as the policy is written, no. Mr. Beckley continued by staling that as a courtesy, the department works with the employee when an employee needs to make a child sitting arrangement. Management will ask the employee how long they need to attend to their business, but to come in after that. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Beckley if he agreed with Mr. Siira that there is language that allows the employee to say they don't have to work overtime. Mr. Beckley replied absolutely not. Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated that while she agreed with Mr. Beckley, there was also no language that calls for mandatory overtime. She stated that the snow plow/truck drivers are very conscientious and the paragraph referred to as opt out has been a point of contention since the inception of the snow policy. She staled there were other grievances that were settled, never getting to the Civil Service Commission, where people received disciplinary action and time off. She further stated management and Union's interpretation of that paragraph in the snow policy differ. The truck drivers here tonight can tell you that they have been allowed to opt out during the snow policy and there are other people who are more than willing to work. She commented that at no time she knew of, did they not have a full complement of machinery to clear the snow on the morning of this instance. The individuals came back in the next morning while they were still on a snow emergency. There were trucks sitting that these individuals were qualified to drive, but they were told they were not allowed to take them on the road. She added the Union's Vice -President, Mr. Holloway, did get a letter to management today or was in the process of getting a letter to them. The Union wanted to settle these grievances before we started with the Labor -Management that they felt would end up being a discussion on the snow policy. She stated she didn't think it was fair to the three (3) grievants to hold them hostage to gel a change in the snow policy. Ms. Mahoney confirmed that whatever resolution occurred relative to these three grievances, Mr. Kasprzynski was satisfied so we just have Mark and Debbie who are not satisfied with the resolution to them. Mr. Hoffman replied she was correct and stated they would like a full settlement adjusting their call -out hours on the overtime call -out list. Ms. Mahoney clarified that they were not asking for the hours, they were asking for status on the overtime call -out. Mr. Hoffman stated yes, ma'am. Mr. Schoonover also agreed. Mr. Tatigian stated they are really down to two (2) people who, last winter, really didn't do much work on snow removal. Apparently, they've been reimbursed for whatever time it was that they were docked. He inquired if that was correct. Mr. Hoffman replied yes. Mr. Tatigian stated they hadn't accepted any financial detriment and the issue was the snow cycle list. Ms. Mahoney stated if there is a call -out list and you don't get called out very much, because you're not here, there's a potential for you to lose money and that was the issue. Mr. Hoffman stated there is that possibility. Ms. Mahoney stated the fact of the matter was, between the time at which they were given a low priority for being called out for overtime and now, if they had not been at low priority, but at a higher priority for call -out, they may have been called out for overtime that would have increased their income. They are asking to be put back in the order where they might get called out if there was an opportunity for overtime. Mr. Hoffman agreed. Page 9 121 (Rh Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mr. Beckley stated they never got a response and the offer that they have, he was not comfortable with. He stated he was still interested in a suspension of two (2) days for these two (2) employees. Ms. Mahoney inquired who made the offer. Mr. Beckley replied he put this in as a Step 2 response. They were expecting to have discussion over that. He stated it was crucial that the Union recognize management's right to schedule overtime. He continued that was why the settlement of the Kasprzynski grievance was in question, because if the Union is challenging management's rights to schedule overtime on these two grievances, did that mean that they agree with management's right to schedule overtime on the Kasprzynski grievance? Mr. Campau inquired why the Union didn't go to Labor -Management meeting and discuss the issue. Mr. Hoffman stated there was an internal problem with the Executive Board but he was handling the grievances now. Mr. Campau asked if the Union would be willing to go back to a Labor -Management meeting to discuss this issue. Mr. Hoffman replied he would but, he didn't want to discuss the snow policy, he wants to get the two employees back on overtime. Mr. Campau explained that you have to discuss the big picture. Mr. Hoffman stated he felt the big picture was adjusting these people on the overtime call -out list. This situation has to do with snow policy; it could have pertained to somebody not working too many water breaks; it could have been somebody not working enough leaf overtime or enough brush time overtime; it just happened to be a snow emergency. Ms. Mahoney requested they step back and listen to some anxious folks in the audience. She asked the audience to give their name and what piece of information they had. Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, stated he was part of this grievance. He stated because he didn't answer his telephone he was penalized and placed at the bottom of the call -out list which stopped the chance of him getting a call-in to come in to work overtime. He stated he has worked 27 years and he fell that other people that didn't answer their phone weren't penalized so severely by putting them at the bottom of the list. He further stated he was not assigned to a salt truck, he signed for another piece of equipment, but he does operate a salt truck or plow truck when he is at work. He doesn't get called in all the time, because he's not assigned to a piece of equipment that is involved in snow removal. He stated he didn't know how Mr. Beckley says that management has the right to schedule overtime. Mr. Trybus continued that he has a life outside of work and what happens with his family rules his life; not what the department needs. If he already has something to take care of, the department's emergency comes after his own business. Ms. Mahoney slated she understood. Mr. Trybus inquired why he should be penalized a chance to work overtime and be placed at the bottom of the list when they've never done that to anybody before. Ms. Mahoney again explained that she understand his point but that he needed to understand how scheduling occurred if it snowed. Mr. Trybus stated that during the summer he works overtime but right now they're not letting him work. Page 10 1216th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mr. Tatigian inquired if he worked overtime during the winter. Mr. Trybus replied that in the wintertime, if it occurred during his waking hours, he didn't have a problem working. He continued that if you went through his work record, he'd be more than happy to itemize his waking hours. But if it starts snowing at 5:00 p.m., and they didn't call him until 2:30 a.m., and he didn't hear the telephone, why should he be penalized. Mr. Tatigian inquired if he meant he wanted to work snow removal operations. Mr. Trybus stated if it was during his waking hours, he didn't have a problem. Mr. Hoffman explained that Mr. Trybus sleeps on a breathing machine at night. Mr. Trybus stated since he slept with a machine he doesn't hear the phone ring all the time. He continued that because he didn't hear the telephone, he was severely punished, and that has never happened before and they don't want this to happen again. Ms. Mahoney called on another audience member, Arica Flores, Construction Worker II, Roads Department. She stated she is a single mom and they get a lot of call -ins at night. She was concerned about how this comes about because she does come in when they schedule the snow policies. She has one day that she has day care providers, but when they have to come in and salt in the middle of the night, she can't always come in. She has three kids at home and she can't knock on her neighbor's door at 3:00 a.m. and ask them to watch her kids. She stated most of them come in as much as possible and that our families drive on these roads and they want them safe. She is concerned if they penalize employees because they don't come in during those times. She added that in the summer there is overtime for Saturdays, she does have daycare and she would like to work those days. She further stated there was nothing in their contract that says we have to be available to work. When she was hired in the department they never said that she had to be available to work 24/7, she doesn't have a pager and she's not on call. Ms. Mahoney thanked Ms. Flores for her comments. Debbie Jamieson, Equipment Operator 11, stated she was the other grievant. She referenced Article I of the Snow Policy which states, "Employees removed from the cycle at their own request, for any reason, except accepting another work assignment, shall be permitted back into the next cycle." She explained that this was the way it always was. On the day in question, she had just come back from being off work for a week due to being ill. She stated she had a doctors note. She worked eight (8) hours and she did plow. She stated Mr. Beckley wanted her to stay twelve (12) hours. It would have been 16 hours because she's assigned to "A" shift. She stated from a safety standpoint, she could not stay behind the wheel of that truck being sick. She stated she came back in the next morning at 7:00 a.m. Ms. Jamieson didn't feel Mr. Beckley offered her the courtesy of being able to come back in when she felt better. She stated she sat in the lunchroom until 11:00 a.m. and then was permitted to go back to work, even though her assigned vehicle was sitting in the barn, along with four (4) other trucks. There were five (5) trucks sitting in that barn and a couple of them were available to plow snow. She further stated her foreman told Mr. Beckley how ill she was. She referenced the grievance package and how much snow overtime she worked during that period of time. She stated she was in Florida for two weeks in January. Other times, it was on the weekend when she is not home. She explained that she has an elderly mother, who requires her to take her to appointments, etc, but she tries to have her schedule those after hours. She stated that for the previous season she worked close to 200 hours of overtime. She works as a brush thrower, and after storms she comes in, and picks up trees that have Page 11 1215th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 fallen. She wasn't present when Mr. Beckley thanked the seasonal employees because she was outside working. She staled she told her foreman, when he called her on the radio, she would try to work as long as she could. When she sat at the desk to make out her daily card, her foreman, Dave Bryant said to her, what are you doing? She said she was going home, she was so sick she couldn't stand it any longer. She felt that the two (2) day suspension for not working mandatory overtime, which they don't have, they were holding that over her head since March 1 "and put her at the bottom of the list. Norm Siira, Roads Department, slated the snow policy was actually instituted by our Union back in the early 1970s. The drivers would work 26, 28, 30 or 35 hours, and other eligible operators were upset that they weren't being asked to work that plow period. The policy was established to equalize overtime. Mr. Siira continued that the policy has become an issue lately, with people not being able to work for health reasons etc. It has an affect because we don't have as many people working. The mandatory overtime situation which Mr. Beckley would like to institute is as Yvonne Lillibridge said, something we would love to dispute. Mr. Siira stated he has opted out a lot. He explained that as an Equipment Operator III, he doesn't expect to get called. There are truck drivers who want the money and they are assigned to those vehicles. He stated there has never been a lack of people for plowing and to require or suggest that we can't opt out was not really correct. Charles Locke, Water Operations Mechanic II, stated he works in Water so he doesn't know anything about the snow policy, but what concerned him was the fact that these two (2) individuals didn't answer their phone, and as punishment, they were put at the bottom of the list. He continued by stating in Water there are only four (4) individuals that can operate a tractor. He stated it scared him that they could say because someone didn't answer the phone that they were going to put you on the bottom of the list. He stated he injured himself, but if for some reason he didn't get called and he was moved to the bottom, they would cycle through the list again, and instead of being a tractor operator, he could be back in the hole. He stated he didn't mind being in the hole. He is the youngest digger and there are three other diggers older than him. He felt that didn't equalize the overtime. He didn't like the precedent that this would set and to go to the bottom of the list if you don't answer the phone was wrong. Ms. Mahoney asked Mr. Beckley how the order of calls worked. One way to move people to the bottom is if they don't answer or they don't come in. In general, at the end of the week, when you reorganize that list, what is used to move people up and down that list? Mr. Beckley responded that overtime hours worked and overtime hours refused. He continued that it was a complicated formula that they try to adjust every week and that would keep the hours to every employee so that that order will change from week to week. Ms. Mahoney stated by working a lot of overtime hours, an employee might get to the bottom of the list just because they have a lot of hours. But for the people who haven't got as many if it was because they did a lot of refusing of them, then that may not move them to the top. Mr. Beckley confirmed that was correct. Mr. Locke stated if you refused overtime, you are charged as if you worked those hours. Mr. Beckley agreed that refused time was added to hours worked to determine charged overtime. That would move you down to the bottom of the list also. Ms. Mahoney apologized to anyone whose hand was raised but Mr. Taligian had a question Page 12 1210th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Beckley when somebody was called and they didn't respond the first time, do they go to the bottom of the list? Mr. Beckley replied that if the employee refuses, then they are charged with whatever number of hours were worked by the employee who did respond. Mr. Tatigian stated he was getting the impression that these individuals were penalized because they were called and they didn't respond and they went to the bottom of the list and asked if that was correct. Mr. Beckley stated no, they were being penalized as a result of their conduct on this instance and in previous instances. Mr. Tatigian inquired how many times they refused to come in. Mr. Biga stated it was in excess of 20 in some cases. Mr. Beckley stated there were 28 different instances in the case of Mr. Trybus. Mr. Tatigian inquired for what period of time. Mr. Beckley stated they were looking at a period from November 2004 through March 1, 2005 there were 28 different instances. Mr. Campau inquired if they were assuming all 28 of those were refusals to work. Mr. Beckley stated those were refused to respond; either they couldn't make contact with him or he didn't answer the phone. Mr. Tatigian confirmed there were actually only five (5) refusals to work. Mr. Campau stated that all the rest are failed to respond, that meant you didn't get a hold of him. Mr. Beckley said that was correct. Mr. Campau stated in that four (4) month period, there were only five (5) times where Mr. Trybus was asked to work overtime and he actually refused. So the department is counting 23 times when he was called and did not respond to that call as a penalty against him. Mr. Beckley stated as a penalty against him, yes, as an indication of a poor track record. There are other examples throughout the year when the overtime work was different, more perhaps to his liking, and he picked up the phone, but all through that period, we just couldn't seem to reach him and he didn't know why. Mr. Tatigian inquired about Ms. Jamieson. Mr. Campau indicated she had three (3) refusals. Mr. Campau stated there were 22 failed to respond. Mr. Beckley stated the same case with Ms. Jamieson, the number of times attempts were made and failure to respond. Debra Jamieson explained that for two of those times she was in Florida. Ms. Mahoney directed the audience to maintain some order. Ms. Mahoney continued that for Mr. Trybus, of the 28 times in that snow season where an attempt was made to reach him, and of the five (5) limes you talked to him and he said no, those would have been charged against his overtime record. Mr. Beckley replied that if those were involved in snow policy, they would not be handled in that fashion, but if it was a call-in and someone else did work, yes, they would have been charged. Ms. Mahoney inquired if under the snow policy, when someone is supposed to be there, is it different if that person doesn't show up because they weren't called to come in? Page 13 1215th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mr. Beckley stated they would have been, the issue would have been discussed with him, he could have received an oral reprimand, and other measures could have been taken in between discipline. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Beckley had to hire a private contractor. Mr. Beckley stated there are shifts they have when they can't fill up all of our trucks. They might have eighteen (18) spots, eighteen (18) vehicles, but they might only have fourteen (14) drivers and since they didn't have the other four (4) come in, the job takes longer to get done or they have to rely more heavily on contracted assistance. Mr. Tatigian stated he had a question. Were these the only people that have developed this sort of situation with the department, where they periodically don't seem to do the overtime? Mr. Beckley replied he'd like to answer that. They have roughly twenty (20) vehicles, twenty (20) trucks that they try to field. They have ten (10) road graders. They have forty (40) department operators that are involved in the cycle. Of those, I would say ninety (90%) percent do a fantastic job. They respond. As Mr. Siira pointed out, he said he's had some consideration in the past and he's correct. Because he responds. He does whatever he can to respond to the needs of the department in terms of snow emergencies. Mr. Beckley continued that they were not talking about mandatory overtime and he didn't want to give the impression that they were. The department has three (3) people that have abysmal records in terms of responding to snow situations. The other ninety (90) percent of that forty (40) come in. The department has three (3) employees that believe that theirjob is primarily 7:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. and they don't believe that overtime is required. They feel management does not have the right to force them to work overtime. Mr. Beckley stated that you're either a snow plow operator or you're working in the department that's responsible for that activity. He stated that's the crux of the issue. Does the City have the right to schedule overtime? According to Article 32 of the contract they have, the bargaining contract they have with 192, it says they do. It doesn't say they have mandatory overtime, but they have the right to schedule overtime. For ninety (90) percent of the employees in the department, there is no problem and we have an excellent response. With ten (10) percent, primarily these three (3), these are the problem children. And that's why we're bringing this action and that why we think the appropriate discipline that we've got proposed here is fair and just. Ms. Mahoney stated that at this point they were not discussing the discipline that's being held in abeyance. Mr. Beckley responded that regarding the discipline, and the pulling of the discipline that was offered in our response, since we haven't received any reaction to that, he was still looking at suspending these people for two (2) days. Mr. Hoffman added that with the hiring freeze, being shorthanded, he thought these individuals stood out. It was noted in the paper they had custodians and secretarial staff volunteering to come in. There was help and he thought the City was still cleared on the 24-hour period with or without these individuals. Mr. Beckley replied that was correct. But he also noted that 65% of the effort was being done by contracted assistance and the participation of those three (3) people could have reduced the amount of contracted assistance, reducing the overall cost to the City. Page 14 1210th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mr. Hoffman pointed out that Ms. Jamieson took her job seriously; and has been a relief foreman. Mr. Trybus signed for Truck #47 and does not have any means of salting or plowing. He further staled Mr. Trybus signed for that truck because with his sleep apnea, he didn't want to be a burden. Ms. Mahoney inquired if Mr. Beckley had any reason to believe the Union wanted to work this out. Mr. Beckley stated he hasn't seen any indication of interest on the part of the Union to try to meet and discuss this. He stated that if they were considering reducing the two (2) day suspension that would have been part of the discussion. Scheduling overtime is their main objective. But there are about four (4) people that contend they have the right to refuse overtime and that is the issue. Ms. Mahoney reiterated that through some internal conflict in the Union leadership that was what caused the inability for that meeting to occur. She inquired if the Union could step back and bring themselves and the department together to try to resolve the issue. The issue being, the need for the City to be able to schedule overtime and to have employees who know their responsibility. She added that single parent issues ought to be a legitimate reason for an individual not being able to come in, but the responsibility on the part of the department and the employees to serve the community needs to be discussed. She stated she wasn't sure if what the Union was asking tonight in moving people up and down the list, would resolve the issue. Mr. Hoffman responded that it probably wouldn't and stated there are ongoing issues with the snow policy. The Union felt that with a two (2) day suspension hanging over the two employee's heads, this puts the ball in management's court. We'd like to get this matter settled and he would be more than happy to meet and discuss snow policy anytime. Mr. Hoffman staled there was a partial settlement, and what they're arguing is to make the employees whole by readjusting charged overtime, because the City was going to withdraw the disciplinary letters of March 29, 2005. Ms. Mahoney stated that was to come after a discussion with the Union relative to getting something they wanted, which included scheduled overtime. That letter was put together assuming it would be a discussion item, it was not made as an offer. Mr. Campau responded it seemed like they need to sit down and talk about the offer. Mr. Beckley replied they tried. Mr. Tatigian stated Mr. Hoffman says he's willing to meet with you now. Mr. Beckley responded he was glad to hear that. Ms. Lillibridge stated she heard they would like to see these grievances resolved. And I feel that it is unfair to the employees involved to hold a Labor -Management discussion on the snow policy, and hold their grievances hostage, when the Union and management all agree that there needs to be some discussion on the snow policy and the way it's implemented. She added she was not sure that every foreman implements policy in the way that they've been directed and that causes confusion and dissention with 192 people, foremen and supervisors. She added they have no problem sitting down and discussing the snow policy, but not if disciplinary action is being held over these two (2) people's heads. Ms. Mahoney stated at one point the Union agreed to have that meeting, but something caused a disruption in their leadership. Ms. Lillibridge replied the meeting was scheduled while Page 15 1215th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 she was on vacation and the Union Vice -President canceled it because of some discussion they had with the grievants. Kim Buchholz -Lewis, Construction Worker 11, stated she has a similar situation to Arica Flores. She continued that she is not a single mom, but her husband works midnights and she can't leave her kids at home and what happens to these two individuals might become very important to her family if she can't come in on certain days. She wondered if she couldn't show up during the next snow cycle, if she would be getting a two (2) day suspension. She recalled that when she returned from a vacation up north there were five (5) messages on her machine asking her come in to plow. She inquired if an employee was on vacation, would there be discipline of two (2) days off without pay. She staled that this needed to be settled tonight. Ms. Mahoney asked to defer to Mr. Beckley. Mr. Beckley requested to address the last comments and stated there were some real concerns on the part of the Union as far the implementation of this policy. He stated that Labor -Management or further discussions would help. Mr. Beckley also wished to address Ms. Lillibridge's comments about holding the grievants hostage. He stated that was not what was happening. Mr. Beckley stated there are three (3) abusers but one has withdrawn. He continued by stating that it was clear to him and to their foremen, that these three (3) individuals were out of the norm. Mr. Beckley did not feel they were holding them up because they have an issue with the Union regarding their response. They have an issue with three (3) people and their lack of response to call -ins for snow and ice control. He further stated that was why the disciplinary action was taken. Mr. Biga stated this was one of the reasons why he wanted to get a Labor -Management committee meeting. He continued that there were multiple issues involved and the snow policy was not the main issue. He stated the primary issue was the response to a regular snow event; not the snow policy. He further stated these employees are not responding to normal snow issues and the events that Ms. Buccholz was talking about had nothing to do with snow policy, they were call -outs for specific snow events. The snow policy is when you have an all- out emergency, declared by the Mayor, and the department goes into 24-hour operations. What was being challenged here is a majority of these are individual occurrences where work needs to be done and the department was attempting to get a crew in to work. Mr. Biga brought up another issue; the use of caller ID. He stated with caller ID a person could selectively decide to answer or not. He added that not knowing if that was the case, it could be presumed that is what was happening and that it required some discourse with the Union and the employee to find out if that was happening. He suggested that maybe these employees need to withdraw themselves from the jobs that have the potential to plow snow or maybe accommodations could be made. He reiterated that is what discussion would find out and he wanted to get time with management and the Union to isolate these issues. He stated single mother issues were something they could work with also. When there are accommodations and issues, the employee can't be in a situation where they can come back and say, "I should have been called and therefore you owe me overtime." Or if someone was on vacation, and the department made an accommodation where they weren't going to call them for overtime, they can't come back from vacation and say, 'you should have called ma.' He stated we don't want to get into a "Catch 22" situation. He stated what he heard tonight was the employees are willing to discuss this. He also stated the department needs to have people respond for snow situations and they should meet for discussion. Page 16 1210th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Mr. Campau inquired if it was standard operating procedure that the Union and management get together for these meetings prior to the grievance coming to them. Mr. Biga replied no. Ms. Mahoney commented that it would be nice if it was. Mr. Tatigian had one brief comment to the head of the Union, who he stated made a nice presentation this evening. He stated there is the interest of the public. There is the interest of the City, as far as not having to unduly pay people who haven't worked for time that they claimed they should have been able to work. Then there is the interest of the employees that didn't work, but feel that they should be compensated. He continued that there was actually another group too, whose interest should be taken into consideration; that was the other members of their bargaining unit. He asked if, for the people that are actually doing the work, it was fair to them. Mr. Tatigian continued that people can duck phone calls. We can't prove that, but other members of the bargaining unit that do work the snow days - was it fair to them? Mr. Hoffman replied yes, sir, because every time Mark or Debbie or whoever can't come in, he is called. People want to work and want to be there. The ninety (90) percent Mr. Beckley mentioned want people to turn down those calls so they get called to work. Mr. Tatigian proposed that these people should be put to the bottom of the list because they obviously don't want to do the work. Mr. Hoffman explained that they were put at the bottom when they refused and they get charged with the hours. Mr. Schoonover stated with this circumstance, though, they were not ducking phone calls. He continued that Mr. Trybus is unable to hear the phone because of a medical condition. Ms. Mahoney called upon Mr. Trybus. Mr. Trybus stated he was divorced and that out of those five (5) instances, on two (2) of them he was out of town on vacation. Mr. Trybus advised that he had 27 years of service to the City and he used to come in for call -ins every time it snowed. Mr. Trybus described two instances where he was out salting, witnessed accidents. He reiterated that he has worked during extreme weather conditions. He further staled he felt like they were picking on a 5 -month period when he didn't respond for five (5) overtime opportunities. Mr. Tatigian identified that by Mr. Trybus's own statement, he really didn't want to work when he is sleeping. Mr. Trybus answered he couldn't work when he was sleeping. Mr. Hoffman responded that Mr. Trybus signed for truck #47; he didn't sign for a salt truck so he wouldn't be a burden on his fellow co-workers. Mr. Trybus continued that when he does come in for a snow policy, he gets extremely tired and begins falling asleep behind the wheel and doesn't wish to cause risk to himself or somebody else but feels they hold that against him. Mr. Campau suggested they go back to Labor -Management. Ms. Mahoney agreed. She added that this City gets cleaned up quickly. Mr. Tatigian agreed the department does a good job. Ms. Mahoney acknowledged there are more issues than just the snow policy which is set up before an emergency. Mr. Schoonover confirmed that it could be for a water main break or for a tree limb down. Ms. Mahoney stated it could be for anything and she thought the concern was the word "mandate." Ms. Mahoney stated the Union presented a very strong case; they Page 17 1210th Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 were very polite in their presentation, and very organized, and management has also. She requested they meet, with Mr. Biga's assistance, to identify the real issues. She stated the fact of the matter was that the department had in place, some disciplinary action that they have not yet given out. Mr. Tatigian and Mr. Beckley clarified that for the one case there was a five (5) day suspension but for these two (2) cases, they were considering a two (2) day suspension. They differ because the one gentleman was satisfied with the Step 2 disposition. Mr. Beckley reiterated the department was reluctant to settle the Kasprzynski grievance separately. Mr. Tatigian proposed that management and the Union get back together and if they can't resolve it, come back to the Civil Service Commission and they would give them a decision. Mr. Schoonover inquired if it was a suggestion that they sit down to have a Labor -Management meeting discussing these matters, or to discuss the snow policy. Ms. Mahoney agreed with Mr. Biga and stated that they need to determine the issues. Some issues are centered around overtime and some issues are centered around what occurred last March. Part of that offer that was on the table was addressed, so it could be more than one meeting, but if they are not resolved, then they can come right back here to the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Schoonover stated the fear of the Union is that the two (2) day suspensions have been held over our head, if we don't agree with the changes they would like to have in the snow policy. Mr. Hoffman also stated if they don't agree with their new proposal, two (2) employees will get two (2) days off and one employee will get five (5) days off. Mr. Tatigian reminded the Union they still have a chance for a hearing with the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Schoonover requested that the Labor -Management meeting take place within the next month, before the next Civil Service Commission meeting. Mr. Tatigian declared he would insist on that. Ms. Mahoney stated she saw no reason why they couldn't. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 05-157 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local Grievances #05-17, dated April 7, 2005, from Mark Trybus and AFSCME Union Local Grievance #05-19, dated April 7, 2005, from Debbie Jamieson, regarding the snow policy, and after discussion with Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works; Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director; Kimberly Buchholz -Lewis, Construction Worker II; Arica Flores, Construction Worker II; Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II; Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Charles Locke, Water Operations Mechanic II; Steven Schoonover, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; No" Siira; Equipment Operator III; and Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, the Civil Service Commission does hereby refer this to a Labor - Management meeting to attempt to resolve the issues prior to the next regular meeting of October 19, 2005. Page 18 1210Yh Regular Meeting September 21, 2005 Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Cant and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner