Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1221st csc minutes1221°' REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1221" Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, February 1, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 5:34 p.m. Members Present: Also Present: Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works Kimberly Buchholz -Lewis, Construction Worker II John Dauffenbach, Dept./Division Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Gerald Eizen, Fire Lieutenant Arica Flores, Construction Worker I Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Edwin Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation Alex Kwasniuk, Engineering Assistant I Tom Liacakes, Construction Worker II Charles Locke, Water Operations Mechanic II Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian Ronald E. Campau David Robertson, Water Operations Mechanic II Kevin Roney, Public Utility Manager Sharon Sabo, Account Clerk III Ruthann Saylor, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Steven Schoonover, Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debra Seeman, Secretary, AFSCME Union Local 192 James Sturgill, Construction Worker II Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief Bruce Whitcombe, Engineering Assistant I Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II Gretchen Guisberl, Secretary III Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 06-15 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1220th Regular Meeting held Wednesday, January 11, 2006, be approved as submitted. The Commission received and fled the Status of Temporary Employees Report for January 2006. The Commission received and fled the Non -Resident report as of February 1, 2006. Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 and Charles Locke, Water Operations Mechanic II, distributed sample daily job cards to the Civil Service Commission. One sample card listed 212, the account code for fatigue time and the other card listed 200, the account code for vacation. On one sample card the sample day worked lists 6 hours Paget 1221 at Regular Meeting Fexuary 1, 2006 vacation and 2 hours worked. The time period covered for that day is 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. There are 8 % hours in the day, but the 30 -minute unpaid lunch period is not shown on the card. The other sample card charged code 212, which is the fatigue time, is a different example day, only the employee worked up until December 13. The employee worked and was released at 7:00 a.m. Normally employees list 8 hours of fatigue time, because in the contract, if there are less than 2 hours remaining in the day, employees don't have to return. Ms. Mahoney clarified that time is credited to fatigue time. Mr. Locke stated they report 6 hours and 2 hours of another bank because Management can require you to come back to work, if needed. The Union's opinion is that goes beyond the scope of why fatigue time was created. On the date in question, the employees returned to the yard at approximately 6:45 a.m. after completing their work. The foreman instructed them they were done working and to go home. The employees were denied their 15 minutes of wash-up time and felt this was due to a recent memo from Mr. Roney, stating employees could no longer use lunch as part of their fatigue time. The contract states in Section 325, an employee who works 16 hours or more gets an 8 -hour break. Section 321. states if an employee is called back to work, they will be released for a 6 -hour period. Mr. Locke gave examples of employee work schedules. If an employee was called in before 11:00 p.m., there is a chance they will work 16 hours in a 24-hour period. If an employee is called in after 11:00 p.m., because of the 24-hour swing, there is no chance to work 16 hours. If employees work from midnight until 7:00 a.m., they have worked 15 hours in a 24-hour period. This has been the practice for the last five contracts. Mr. Locke stated Dave Robertson has been in the Water Department for 14 years and can attest to this. When employees are released at 7:00 a.m., they don't have to come back for the rest of the day. He said the City believes the Union is asking for fatigue time to always be paid time and they are not. If they repair a water break by 5:00 a.m., they know that they are getting 6 hours of fatigue time and to come back in at 1100 a.m. Al 11:30 a.m., however, we would still take our lunch. Ms. Mahoney asked if lunchtime was the same everyday. Mr. Locke explained they try to make it the same time every day but it can Fluctuate. Mr. Locke stated if the water is off to an entire street, they work until the job is finished. If the water happens to come back on at 12:30 p.m., they take lunch at 12:30 p.m. per the collective bargaining agreement. If the water doesn't come on until 1:30 p.m., they take lunch; but they get paid for lunch. If they are released at 5:00 a.m. and come back at 11:00 a.m., lunch is at 11:30 a.m. If they are released at 5:30 a.m., they return at noon, because lunch is from 1130 until 12:00 p.m. There are six (6) hours of fatigue time and they return at 12:00 p.m. because they took their lunch, which is unpaid time. In the past if they were released at 6:00 a.m., they would come back at 12:30 p.m. They still take a 30 -minute lunch because it is somewhat Flexible when you can take it. Mr. Locke referenced Contract 31.B., which states that 30 minutes of lunch is guaranteed in your workday, exclusive of your 8 -hour day. Ms. Mahoney confirmed lunch was unpaid. Mr. Locke responded they were just asking for the 30 guaranteed minutes. When on 16 hours of fatigue time, if they are released at 7:00 a.m. and given 8 hours of fatigue time, the 8 hours covers from 7:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. This hasn't been an issue and it is an 8-1/2hour period. The Union believes that they haven't had to come back because they are guaranteed 30 minutes of lunch. Mr. Locke continued by stating the City is proposing that if they were off at 6:00 a.m., they would have to come back at noon. They would lose their lunch period and would have to work the additional 3 % hours in the day. The Union views that as Management trying to not pay them for lunch. Mr. Locke referenced Page 1221 n Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 Article 321., which states "if such release time coincides with the employee's next normal workday, he shall suffer no loss of his straight -time pay he would ordinarily earn during such period." The Union is saying that if that lunch period is taken away and it falls under the six (6) hours of release time, they are suffering a loss. It is actually unpaid time. The Union is not asking to be paid for any time prior 7:00 a.m. because that's in the fatigue time window, but if it falls during working hours, they believe they are still entitled to lunch. On the day in question, employees who were called into work decided they didn't want to come back to work the remainder of the day. Employees were asked if they wanted to come back or if they wanted to use time out of their own banks. If it is two hours or less, employees have been given that as fatigue time. If it's more than two hours, employees have used their own banks, or come back and work. Mr. Locke cited one instance of him having worked on water breaks for 48 straight hours and another instance of 52 hours over a 3 -day period and during those instances they did not lake lunch breaks; they just grabbed a bite to eat and continued working. In the grievance settlement, Management agreed to give back the time to the grievants because of the past practice, but Management said the practice would change in the future. The Union doesn't think it should change. The contract language has been the same for at least the last five contracts, but now something was found that has been overlooked where it says, "an employee shall not normally be required back to work for less than two hours.' The City said that the Union interpreted that to mean two hours or less and they are saying the contract means less than two hours. If the Union relies on the City's interpretation, they have gone from less than two hours to an hour and forty-five minutes. The Union doesn't believe this is an accurate interpretation, since they've always treated it when you come back at 1:30 p.m.; you are released for the entire day. If there is an emergency, they are called and they do come back (in that two-hour window). In that situation, they would be looking for a crew that could stay beyond 3:30 p.m. Mr. Locke explained a water break can't be fixed in less than two (2) hours; it typically takes six to twenty-seven hours. The Union has a problem with Management's interpretation of 321. The Union is not asking for a paid lunch. Article 31.B. does say they are guaranteed a lunch, exclusive of the eight-hour day and that is where they suffer the loss. Mr. Locke referenced number 4 of the Grievance Settlement, where it states, "The Department operates on quarter-hour pay increments. Any punch -outs in between quarter hours shall be calculated back to the previous quarter-hour for purposes of pay and start of release time." He added this has been an ongoing practice that does not agree with their answer. The Union believes what is fair is if the employee works less than half the quarter-hour, the City gets that pay and if an employee works until 7:37 a.m., they are only paid until 7:30 a.m.; but if they work until 7:38 a.m., the employee gets credit for that quarter hour. After searching through the Departmental Rules and Regulations, the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations, the Contract, and the City Charter, Mr. Locke never found this in writing. He stated Management wants to change release time that ends before 1:30 p.m. to require employees to return to work for the balance of their shift or request vacation, personal business or compensatory leave time. Mr. Locke staled they do not have comp time and the only time they ever received comp time was when they were awarded it as a settlement in lieu of money. Mr. Locke explained they earn the standard vacation bank, the standard sick time and if it's been 1:30 p.m. or less, it has always been fatigue time, they haven't been required to take that out of their bank. Page 1221 ar Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 Mr. Locke referenced number 6 of the Grievance Settlement where it states, "Employees who are released on or after 7:45 a.m. shall generally not be required to return to work for the end of their shift," and indicated that used to be if they finished at 7:00 a.m., they were given six hours of fatigue, 30 minutes of lunch and they were expected back to work at 1:30 p.m. There is not a lot an employee can do in the last two hours in a Water Mechanic position that can't be done the next day. Mr. Campau inquired if the two hours was paid time. Mr. Locke confirmed it was paid time. The contract guarantees the employees either six or eight depending on how many hours they have worked. The fatigue may or may not be paid. If an employee is called in to work a water break at 5:00 p.m., after he has been home for an hour -and -a -half, and they work until 1:00 a.m. and then they are released, they are only on fatigue time for six hours, and they know they have to come back to work at 7:00 a.m. If they want to take the day off, they either have to call in sick or put in for a vacation. The employees are not asking to be paid for the time that is before their normal working hours. The intent of the contract comes from the eight hours when someone has worked for 16. Employees have had little to no sleep and they are released for eight hours so they can get rest. To get the six hours, employees have gone on no sleep. Employees may have worked for 16 hours, 15-1/z, or for just 12, but they have had little to no sleep if they are still working at 7:00 a.m. Mr. Locke stated the City compared the Water employees with those plowing snow and they can't compare that to working on a water break. Trucks are heated, but when employees are fixing a water break, they are out in the cold, getting covered in water. Even in a backhoe, even though it is covered, there can be safety hazards. Snow advisories alert people ahead of time. With water breaks, there are no advance warnings. The intent of the contract and the way that it has been handled over the last 14 years is that if you're given fatigue time and your shift ends at 7:00 a.m., you are off for the remainder of the day. If an emergency happens, they will go through the list to call employees. It has never been a problem to get a crew to come in and repair the water breaks. Mr. Campau inquired when they call in another crew if they have to pay that crew. Mr. Locke replied yes, but stated overtime is not mandatory. Mr. Campau clarified that from 1:30 to 3:30 p.m. they were being paid. Mr. Campau also clarified that the other crew would already be there. Mr. Locke stated there are only nine men. If four are released for fatigue time, there are five remaining. If a water break occurs, employees are asked if they can stay past 3:30. They will go down the list and if only two people can stay, they would call the people that are on fatigue time. Mr. Campau inquired what kind of pay they receive for that. Mr. Locke replied it depended on if it was 16 hours or if it was less than 16 hours. If employees are called in on fatigue time when they have worked 16 hours, and haven't had their eight-hour break, they are on double time. If employees work less than 16 hours and are called back in to work, they are on straight time until 3:30 p.m. and then time - and -a -half. If employees are called back while on fatigue time, if it is the six -hour portion, even if they granted eight hours, they are still on straight time, because they haven't worked 16 hours. If employees were on double time when they were released for fatigue time, and are called back before they have had an eight-hour break, they are still on double time. Ms. Mahoney inquired if lunch is an issue on the eight hours. Mr. Locke stated he didn't know; it hasn't occurred. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Hoffman if the settlement offered by Kevin Roney, Public Utility Manager, made all the employees whole. Mr. Hoffman replied it did make them whole, but the Union didn't want to set a precedent regarding fatigue time. Mr. Hoffman referenced the two sample cards, citing the one with vacation, and stated if an employee took 6 hours vacation from 7:00 a.m., their reporting time would be 1:30; they don't get paid. The Union feels fatigue time should be the treated the same as vacation, sick, personal business, Pages 1221 at Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 or comp. Six hours release is six hours release. The Union is not asking for that half-hour to be paid, but the reporting time should still be 1:30 p.m. if employees have fatigue time from 7:00 a.m. The Union also understands that Management has the right to not release employees if there is another water break. Mr. Locke stated that Management waits until 3:30 p.m. to call employees and it has never been an issue. When employees come in at 3:30 p.m., they don't know how long they are going to work. Mr. Tatigian stated this issue was puzzling to people who don't deal with it often. He requested the Union indicate their side of the issue. Mr. Locke again referenced Article 31.13, which stales you are guaranteed 30 minutes of unpaid time during your eight -and -half hours. Mr. Locke stated the issues were lunch and the release time. He also referenced Article 321. which states, 'An employee shall not normally be required to report back for less than two hours." It is treated as when there are two hours or less, they haven't been required to come back. Mr. Locke explained that the six hours of fatigue time is not really a full six hours, due to going home, showering, eating and getting a little sleep. Mr. Tatigian clarified that this is only an issue when it is between 6 and 7 because it overlaps the lunch hour and Management feels that lunch is included in the six hours. Ms. Mahoney stated there are two issues. One is the lunch half-hour and the other is the past practice appeared to change. Mr. Locke added that the practice changed on December 13, 2005. Mr. Locke stated the remaining two hours left in a day is not productive because included in the two hours is 15 minutes of wash-up time and time to fill out paperwork. Ms. Mahoney stated the Union's concern was the future interpretation of the contract by Management. Mr. Tatigian reiterated that Mr. Roney essentially granted the employees' request on this grievance and yet the Union was presenting it to the Civil Service Commission to make a decision which might counter the Union's position. The Union feels that Management is attempting to change what has been done for at least 14 years. The intent of the contract concerns the 16 hours when employees are released for eight. Initially, the contract states if there is not productive work for the employee, the employee may be released on fatigue time for the remainder of the day. If this occurs in the middle of July and employees haven't been working all night, day after day, it's a great thing; they can take the day and go golfing, but when it occurs repeatedly, it is physically draining. Ms. Mahoney expressed concern for safely. Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated she believed what she heard from Mr. Tatigian was the settlement look care of the request to get the employees' banks back. But the settlement goes on to say that the decision to use employees is a Management decision based on operational needs. Ms. Lillibridge stated the grievant said that the employees would come back or stay, if needed. She believes the Union has a problem with changing past practice for something that probably doesn't occur more than once or twice a year. Mr. Tatigian stated there is nothing in the settlement that precludes the Union from bringing another grievance in the future. Ms. Lillibridge stated she believed it would and the contract states that release time is not a requirement. Mr. Wilson stated Management reviewed this issue and found they don't have consistency between the various sections within DPW. After discussion with the foremen, it was discovered that some sections, like the Water Department, interpreted the language to mean Page 1221 at Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 two hours or less, but in other sections, their interpretation is if it is less than two hours, you have to come back for those final two hours. Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Hoffman said it was understood the employees may not get released; they may work into their regular work day based on operational needs. Mr. Wilson commented Yvonne is saying something to the contrary. Mr. Wilson disagreed that release time is a mandate. The contract says if employees are released, they will be released for six hours. After reviewing the punch -ins and punch -outs in the various sections, the Water Section was the only section counting in- between the quarter hours. Mr. Wilson also stated that every other section in the Department works on quarter hours. The Department is trying to be consistent and when there is a situation like this, they refer to contract language. Ms. Mahoney stated in order to regain consistency in the sections; past practice had to be overruled. Mr. Wilson agreed that if there is contract language, that overrules anything considered past practice. Mr. Wilson stated that they didn't have an opportunity for a Step 2 meeting and perhaps some of these things could have been addressed. He added they might be able to find an accommodation of the 2 hours. Regarding the six -hour release time, the contract indicates that the employee shall suffer no loss of their straight time pay if they have been regularly working. If employees work from 7:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., a six -hour period, they would be paid for 5.5 hours with .5 hour unpaid for lunch. Mr. Wilson stated release time is calculated the same. Mr. Locke disagreed. Mr. Locke continued that if employees use vacation time, 6 hours, they put 6 hours of vacation down on the card. Mr. Hoffman added that their starting time would be 1:30 p.m. Mr. Locke stated if employees work from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m., and they needed to take 6 hours, rather than bum 8 hours of vacation time, which would include lunch, they would only bum six hours. Employees would not be released from 9:00 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. and have to come back for 30 minutes; they would be released for the remainder of the day because they are entitled to lunch. Mr. Campau stated they are not getting paid for the half-hour that they are not there. Mr. Locke clarified that they are physically given that time. Mr. Tatigian directed the Union to look at the contract language which states if there are two hours remaining, employees would be required to come back to work and theoretically, the Union could have lost this grievance. He continued by stating that Management was quite generous in giving the employees their time. Mr. Hoffman stated fatigue time is six hours release time and if employees use six hours vacation, their start time would be 130 p.m. If employees have six hours fatigue time, they should come back in at 1:30 p.m. Ms. Mahoney said the issue is confusing when employees work beyond 3:30 p.m. There could be a continuing emergency where work ended at 7:00 a.m. when employees went home and regular work would have to occur between 1:30 p.m. and 3:30 p.m. Mr. Locke stated that to bring up what occurs in other Departments is not relevant, but Management wants the employees to return to work at 1:00 p.m. David Robertson, Water Operations Mechanic II, stated they are asking for working conditions to remain the same as stated in the Maintenance of Conditions clause of the contract. He stated he has worked at DPW for 14 years and it has always been like this. Mr. Wilson stated this was not the same, but he hoped by the end of the meeting they would have some consistency. Mr. Campau inquired if there was a Step 2 meeting on this issue. Mr. Wilson replied the Union elected not to have one. Mr. Hoffman stated he spoke with Mr. Roney and the Union's position was that if the settlement was the best the Department could come up with as a grievance response, there was no sense in talking. The Union feels fatigue time should Page] 1221 at Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 begin at 1:30 p.m., just like for vacation, personal business and anything else and they feel that Management wasn't going to change their stance. Mr. Campau stated the Union doesn't know that because they didn't have a meeting. Mr. Hoffman hoped they would have included it in their grievance settlement. Mr. Campau replied it wasn't a good idea not to have a meeting over a grievance. Mr. Locke stated they had the Step 1, they got the response and after the Step 1, Mr. Hoffman had a brief discussion if Step 2 was going to be the same. There was a lengthy discussion among the entire Water Department and Mr. Roney and that was when they got the response, but that was not a Step 2 meeting. Mr. Campau stated there are different interpretations of the contract language. He asked Mr. Wilson what language he was referring to. Mr. Wilson responded that the six hours was really addressed twice in the clause. First, the contract doesn't indicate a paid six hours, it just indicates a six hour release period. The second part is that employees don't suffer any loss in the straight time pay that they would normally earn. Management laid out different working scenarios in the Step 2 response, whether they are on release time or on leave time, the pay is the same, the lunch is the same and it's treated the same. The other issue of two hours — the contract says less than 2 hours. He stated that issue could possibly be worked out. The Department needs to have everybody on the same page for payroll purposes. Mr. Wilson discussed the leave time, the vacation time, and the work time was addressed in the Step 2 response and they are all being treated the same. Mr. Locke referenced Article 31.B where lunch is guaranteed and asked what happens to that. Ms. Mahoney suggested this discussion should be happening in a Step 2 meeting. Mr. Tatigian asked if they were looking for the hour paid lunch. Mr. Locke added if employees are released at 5:30 a.m., they have to be back at noon because lunch is normally from 11:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. He continued that if they work 30 minutes longer, according to Management, they have to come back 30 minutes sooner and that didn't make sense to him. Ms. Mahoney staled employees could show back up at 11:30 a.m., but it would be lunchtime when they got there. Mr. Locke stated Ms. Mahoney was correct but then they would have only 5 % hours of work and they wouldn't get paid for that half hour. Mr. Hoffman inquired why an employee would come and sit for % hour to have lunch and not get paid for it when they could just come in at 12:00 p.m. Mr. Campau made a motion to refer the Union and Management back to a Step 2 meeting to discuss the issues that they are attempting to discuss here. Mr. Tatigian supported the motion for purposes of discussion. Mr. Wilson agreed there is a method at labor management to talk these issues out. Ms. Mahoney requested that Mr. Biga facilitate a meeting between the two groups to discuss these issues. Mr. Beckley stated he would be interested in the Union's preference if they wanted to have the meeting at the Department or if they wanted Mr. Biga present. Mr. Hoffman replied that it did not matter to the Union but the Commission thought it would be a good idea to have Mr. Biga in attendance and they agreed. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 06-16 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #05-44, dated January 6, 2006, regarding employees being denied wash-up time, and having discussion with Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward; Charles Locke, Water Operations Mechanic II; Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; David Robertson, Water Operations Mechanic II; Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service; and Robert J. Beckley, Page 1221 at Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 Jr., Director of Public Works, the Civil Service Commission does hereby refer this back to a Step 2 meeting with Mr. Biga in attendance, to discuss the issues, as agreed to by Management with the Union having no objections. Mr. Campau left the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Due to only having two Commissioners, it is necessary that the Chair step down to second or make motions for the remainder of the meeting. Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, explained that there was a question whether or not an elected official opts out of participation in the retirement plan and subsequently leaves office and then is re-elected to the same elected office, if their previous opt -out applies. The City has had elected officials who have opted out as a Councilmember who have been elected to other offices, like the Mayor, the City Clerk or City Treasurer. At that point in time, they are offered the opportunity to participate in the pension plan because it is a different elected office. They can opt out for that elected office or not. The question comes up if re-elected to the same office that they previously held. The Ordinance speaks to elected "office" It doesn't say 'term" The Commission needs to detennine if the elected office prevails, if they become subsequently re-elected to that office, they have opted out and they can't get in. The exception would be if they went to a different elected office, which is under the Ordinance. The Commission, by Ordinance, has the authority to determine eligibility for membership in the Retirement Plan. That is why this issue is here and not at the Retirement Board. The question for the Commission is, once you opt out, do you opt out of that elected office forever? Mr. Grzembski inquired if they were talking about Defined Benefit plan or Defined Contribution plan. Mr. Biga replied that the only plan that is open right now is the Defined Contribution plan. If you were elected to an office and your term came up and you ran again and subsequently elected to that same office, could you now elect to be a participant in the pension plan? The Ordinance says "elected office," it doesn't say "term" of office. Once you've elected out, the only way you can get in has been to be elected to another office or get hired with the City somewhere else. The Ordinance is specific, once you opt out you cannot go back and pick up prior time. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-17 RESOLVED, That having reviewed Section 2.96.160, Retirement system — Qualification for Membership of the City of Livonia Retirement Ordinance, and having discussion with Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby determine that once an elected official has decided not to participate in the Livonia pension plan for a specific elected office, they are excluded from membership for any time served in that specific elected office. Page 1221 at Regular Meeting Fexuary 1, 2006 Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, informed the Civil Service Commission that Anthony Cracchiolo had recently passed away. He explained that Sgt. Cracchiolo did not have a chance to use excess compensatory time. In other similar instances the City has paid out compensatory time for workers' compensation cases. It seemed only fair and proper to pay out excess compensatory time to the estate of Sgt. Cracchiolo. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-18 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of January 25, 2006, from Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, requesting payout of Court Time for Anthony Cracchiolo, deceased, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the payout of Court Time to the estate of Anthony Cracchiolo. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-19 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental Correspondence of January 24, 2006, from Gerald Eizen, Fire Lieutenant (TA), as approved for submission by Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting permission to use 4.5 additional paid Family Illness hours chargeable to sick leave for 2005, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the use of 4.5 hours of paid Family Illness leave, beyond the maximum ninety-six (96) hours allowed him per calendar year. Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated the Union has a problem with changing the Description of Work for the Engineering Assistant I classification for work assignments in emergency situations. The Union feels that in their contract, under Management Rights and Responsibilities, Section 2, paragraph B, it is the City's right to make work assignments in emergency situations and the Union doesn't feel that all of the new proposed language needs to be added to every classification that comes up for Local 192. The Union understands that Management has the right to ask employees to work during emergency work situations, and they don't feel it is necessary to have the new language listed in the Description of Work. Mr. Wilson recalled previous discussion about the Engineering Assistant position and the duties and responsibilities. One of the questions that came from the Civil Service Commission was in the context of laying sod and if that is considered an emergency situation. Management didn't feel that it was, but they are trying to define what an emergency situation is. Ms. Mahoney stated that any change in the Description of Work is probably subject to negotiation, not to the Civil Service Commission. She also wondered if there were really two items in front of them; first the promotional examination that they would like to announce. If it is approved, is the Commission automatically approving the proposed change in the Description of Work? Mr. Biga responded no, there are two separate issues. Ms. Mahoney believed that employees understand that when Management determines there is an Page 10 1221st Regular Meeting Febmary 1, 2006 emergency, the employees respond appropriately. Ms. Mahoney stated she didn't think the Civil Service Commission could change the Description of Work. Mr. Wilson stated that Engineering Assistants have plowed snow before and he was hearing that employees do respond appropriately. Mr. Tatigian inquired if the Union objected to this language. Mr. Hoffman responded that they have clerical people volunteering to plowing snow. Mr. Hoffman continued that this would only affect people who have been in their jobs for years. Mr. Wilson stated they have heard two things already; the Union President indicated it is a Management right to make work assignments in emergency situations. Mr. Wilson said the Chief Roads Steward stated it is a volunteer situation; so there are two different issues. Ms. Mahoney stated this is why it would be a good item for negotiations rather than being determined at the Commission meeting. Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward, stated that people volunteered to plow as guest operators and to his knowledge, it has not been mandatory. Ms. Mahoney thought it probably depended on the severity of the emergency as to whether to allow volunteering vs. requiring employees to come in as the manner to which the Department serves the citizens of the City. Bruce Whitcombe, Engineering Assistant I, commented that they are not trained and they don't have any experience driving trucks or putting salt on the road. He also stated during a heavy rain they went out when they were asked and shoveled out the storm catch basins to reduce flooding. Mr. Wilson stated the operation of dump trucks to put salt on streets requires a commercial drivers license and there is no commercial drivers license qualification for operating smaller trucks used in parking lots that would be operated by Engineering Assistants. Ms. Mahoney focused on driving during emergency situations and snow plows. The Commission cannot change the Description of Work; it is a negotiable issue with the Union. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Beckley discussed this with the Union. Mr. Wilson staled their practice is to present this to the Union President and it is signed in acknowledgment of the intent to put this in front of the Commission. He continued that the Union did not bring forth the desire to have discussion about this. Mr. Tatigian stated discussion might have proved useful toward working this out. Ms. Mahoney inquired if Mr. Biga, the Department Head and the Union could sit down and change a Description of Work without it being subject to negotiations. Mr. Biga believed that any change in Job Description should be discussed with the Union. They should go through a negotiation process and if they arrived at an impasse, it could be brought before the Commission to review. Mr. Tatigian commented it may behoove all parties to negotiate to try and resolve it. Ms. Mahoney reiterated there are two items in question. One is approving the promotional examination and then act on the Description of Work; the other would be to wait for the exam to be posted until the Department has discussed the Description of Work. Mr. Wilson staled he didn't think they should go forward with the process. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-20 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of January 17, 2006, from Robert J. Beckley, Jr., Director of Public Works, and Robert J. Schron, City Engineer, requesting a promotional examination for Engineering Assistant I and Page 11 1221st Regular Meeting Febmary 1, 2006 proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights and having discussion with Robert Biga, Human Resources Director; Ken Grzembski, Chief Parks Steward; Ed Hoffman, Chief Roads Steward; Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Bruce Whitcombe, Engineering Assistant I; and Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service, the Civil Service Commission does hereby refer the Qualifications, Parts of Examination and Weights and the Description of Work for Engineering Assistant I to Labor Management for further negotiations with Union and with Robert Biga, Human Resources Director. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-21 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of January 11, 2006, from Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting a promotional examination for Training Coordinator 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 date of this announcement, are: Employed in the Fire Division of the Department of Public Safety, and Have at least five (5) years full-time work experience as a Firefighter and/or Fire Officer with the City of Livonia. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test -50k Assessment Center -50% Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-22 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the expiring eligible list for the month of March 2005, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an extension of the eligible list for Building Mechanic IV (866 o.c.) for an additional six (6) months. Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation explained that the Livonia Community Recreation Center has a water slide that under federal regulations, is considered an amusement park device; therefore, new Department of Labor regulations would prevent 15 - year -olds from working as Lifeguards or Pool Attendants. The Department rotates their employees. If they had an individual that was 15 years old and through a rotation, were assigned to work at the slide, the individual would be in violation of the Department of Labor's application of the Federal Youth Employment Provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Ms. Mahoney inquired if these were part-time employees and Ms. Kapchonick confirmed they were. Ms. Mahoney stated the current Lifeguards and Pool Attendants who are Page 12 1221st Regular Meeting February 1, 2006 15 would have to be terminated because they would not meet the federal regulations. Ms. Kapchonick explained there was only one 15 -year-old employee and that individual would be turning 16 in a couple of months. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-23 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of January 18, 2006, from Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, requesting a change in the minimum age for Lifeguard and Pool Attendant due to Michigan Department of Labor requirements, and having discussion with Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks and Recreation, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve raising the minimum age for Lifeguards and Pool Attendants in the City of Livonia to sixteen (16) in accordance with the Department of Labor regulations. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-24 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Clerk -Typist II (Non-competitive). Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-25 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Custodian (856 o.c.). Receive and File: a. Council Resolution of January 18, 2006 with minutes to be approved January 30, 2006: CR 05-06 RESOLVED, that having considered the report and recommendation of the Director of Finance, dated January 5, 2006, as revised, approved for submission by the Mayor, and to which is attached (as Exhibit A) a summary of quotes received for the lease purchase of copy machines for various City departments, the Council does hereby authorize the lease of one copy machine from Lanier Worldwide, Inc., 20700 Civic Center Drive, suite 350, Southfield, Michigan 48076, for use by the Fire Department; the lease of one copy machine from Ricoh Business systems, 31478 Industrial Road, Suite 200, Livonia, Michigan 48150, for use by the Housing Commission — Silver Village; and the lease of two copy machines from Ikon Office Solutions, Inc., 26800 Meadowbrook, Novi, Michigan 48377, for use by the Civil Service Department and Public Service Division, for a 48 -month period for amounts, items and prices indicated on the aforementioned Exhibit A, at the end of which time title to the copiers will be transferred to the City. Page 13 1221st Regular Meeting February 1, 2000 b. Letter of January 25, 2006, from Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service, submitting the Report of the Department of Public Works Policies, Procedures and Practices in Regard to Employees Working Below Classifications. c. Affirmative Action Report for January 2006. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-26 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the passing point of 70 or 70% of the maximum raw score of 100 for the written examination for Police Vehicle Maintenance Coordinator (876 o.c.). Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 06-27 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the proposed Policy Regarding Donated Vacation Time, and after discussion with Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby refer this back to Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, for circulation to all Elected Officials, Department Heads, Unions and employees for review and comment before Civil Service Commission direction. The Commission Received and Filed the letter of January 30, 2006, from Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, regarding the Emergency Snow Removal Policy. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 7:02 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner Ronald E. Carl Commissioner