HomeMy WebLinkAbout1228th csc minutes1228' REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The 1228th Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Thursday,
September 28, 2006. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m.
Members Present:
Also Present:
Cheryl Allis, Custodian
Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks
and Recreation
Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME
Union Local 192
Sharon Sabo, Treasurer, AFSCME Union
Local 192
Harry C. Tatigian, Chairperson
Ronald E. Campau
Charlotte S. Mahoney
Ruthann Saylor, Chief Clerical Steward,
AFSCME Union Local 192
Steven Schoonover, Chief Roads Steward,
AFSCME Union Local 192
James Sturgill, Construction Worker II
Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director
Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-145 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1227th Regular Meeting held
Wednesday, August 23, 2006, be approved as submitted.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-146 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 93rd Special Meeting held
Monday, August 28, 2006, be approved as submitted.
Prior to the meeting Mayor Jack Engebretson presented Commissioner Charlotte Mahoney
with her 15 -year service pin and thanked Ms. Mahoney for her years of dedication and service
to the City of Livonia. Chairperson Harry Tatigian extended congratulations to Ms. Mahoney
on her 15 years of service with the City of Livonia.
The Commission received and fled the Status of Temporary Employees Report for
August 2006.
The Commission received and fled the Non -Resident Report as of September 1, 2006.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-147 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of
September 21, 2006, from Karen Kapchonick, Superintendent of Parks and
Recreation, requesting a promotional examination for Greenskeeper II and
proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, the Civil Service
Paget 1228th Regular Meeting Septenber 28, Age
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:
Have regular status in a permanent classification; And
Are employed in the Golf Course Division of the Department of Parks and
Recreation; And
Have successfully completed an Associate of Arts degree in Turf Agronomy or
an equivalent degree; And
Have at least five (5) years of full-time paid experience in golf course
maintenance as a Greenskeeper or a position at the same or higher level; Or
Have completed at least ten (10) years of full-time paid experience in golf
course maintenance as a Greenskeeper or a position at the same or higher
level.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Written Test -80% Departmental Rating —20%*
'In the event there is only one (1) qualified applicant for this position, the parts of examination
and weights would be changed to 100% Departmental Rating.
Ruthann Saylor, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, presented Grievance #06-
09, dated August 3, 2006, regarding the granting of status for Jeffrey Michael as an
Engineering Assistant I. Ms. Saylor explained that the original remedy requested has been
dropped. The Union realized they were in error in stating Mr. Michael hadn't obtained his
status, because he did work six (6) months consecutively. The Union disagreed with granting
status if an employee did not complete a continuous unbroken temporary assignment at least
equal to the probationary period. The Union had believed that Mr. Michael had two temporary
assignments less than six (6) months each. The Union alleges that the contract does not allow
for temporary assignments to be added together to obtain status. The Union maintains that
the assignment must be a consecutive time equivalent to the time of probation and Ms. Saylor
alleged this wasn't done. She also alleged that Mr. Michael's final rating was after a break in
service before he completed the six (6) months. Mr. Michael had completed the six (6) month
assignment within 2005.
Ms. Saylor referenced Article 21.B. which states in part, "The assignments are not cumulative
and cannot be tacked on to each other for the purpose of obtaining status. Temporary
assignments, for the purpose of status, must at least equal the probationary period for the
permanent position." She stated this was done was for some Custodians several years ago
under a one-time only circumstance. She stated there was a time when Nancy Koenig came
to the Civil Service Commission requesting status for time with breaks in service and Ms.
Koenig was told it was not possible. She reiterated that if you are gaining status, it has to be
Page 3 1228th Regular Meeting September 28, 2006
for a consecutive period of time. She staled it appeared it was a special preference toward
this employee. She added that Derrick Washington told her the Engineering Department had
petitioned the Civil Service Commission to have Mr. Michael made permanent only after a
short period of time.
Mr. Tatigian inquired why it had taken the Union over a year to present this to the Civil Service
Commission. Ms. Saylor cited the grievance with Jim Sturgill and the Engineering Department
where Mr. Sturgill failed his probation. Ms. Mahoney stated that issue had to do with failing
probation and was not the same matter. Ms. Saylor stated this grievance had gone on to
arbitration and she added that Mr. Sturgill's probationary reports were done in an untimely
manner.
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, advised that matter was withdrawn from arbitration
by the Union. Ms. Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 added that Council 25
indicated that they thought the Commission's offer of returning Mr. Sturgill to the Engineering
Assistant I classification and being allowed to work the balance of the probationary period was
fair and reasonable. Mr. Sturgill rejected the offer. Therefore, Council 25 decided not to
pursue the grievance.
Mr. Tatigian inquired if the Union was asking for Mr. Michael to be demoted. Ms. Lillibridge
replied no, they were withdrawing that part of the remedy, but what they want is for it to be
noted that this was incorrectly done and they don't want it to set a precedent for Management.
Mr. Campau inquired what the response was to the allegation that the contract was not
followed. Mr. Biga deferred to Derrick Washington, Personnel Analyst 11.
Mr. Washington stated he spoke with both Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public
Service and Ms. Saylor, about this situation. He stated his interpretation of the language is
Article 21.A. which lists three (3) conditions that must be met in order to obtain status. Mr.
Washington explained Article 21.A. states an employee must:
(1) Pass a Civil Service examination for the classification to which he has been
temporarily assigned and been on an eligible list. Mr. Michael passed the Engineering
Assistant I examination and was on the eligible list for said classification.
(2) An employee has to have been appointed to a temporary position for which the eligible
list was established on which the employee's name appears. Mr. Michael was
temporarily assigned to the classification of Engineering Assistant I from July 2, 2004 to
October 13, 2004 and again from April 11, 2005 to October 4, 2005.
(3) An employee has to have been assigned for a period during the effective dates of the
current eligible list for said classification at least as long as the probationary period for the
permanent position and have their performance rated satisfactory by their superiors. Mr.
Michael was on an eligible list for this classification and his performance was rated as
satisfactory. The eligible list was in effect from April 7, 2004 and was extended to
October 7, 2005.
Mr. Washington stated he explained this to both Mr. Wilson and Ms. Saylor
Page 1228th Regular Meeting Septenber 28, 20D6
He read Article 21.13, which stales, "A temporary assignment is one that is required to be
posted for a vacancy of 30 days or more. A temporary upgrade is less than 30 days.
Temporary assignments of 30 days or less shall not count toward obtaining status." He
explained that first the contract lists what a temporary upgrade is, but then it states that
temporary assignments of less than 30 days shall not count toward obtaining status. Article
21.13. further states, "The assignments are not accumulative and cannot be tacked on to each
other...." and "Temporary assignments, for the purpose of status, must at least equal the
probationary period for the permanent position" Mr. Washington stated that Article 21.13. did
not apply to Mr. Michael because all of his assignments were over 30 days. The contract
language says upgrades may not be cumulative. It says nothing about assignments being
cumulative.
Mr. Campau inquired if this grievance could be settled by requesting the contract be followed
with regard to all temporary assignments. Mr. Tatigian replied that each case should be
considered on its own merit.
Mr. Campau made a motion to direct the Human Resources Director to ensure the contract is
followed for temporary assignments. The motion died for lack of support.
Ms. Mahoney clarified the Union hasn't withdrawn the grievance, but they withdrew the remedy
in the grievance. Ms. Mahoney believed the contract was followed because Mr. Michael's
assignments were more than 30 days. Mr. Tatigian replied the same language should not
have been used in Article 21.A and 21.13. and suggested the words "temporary assignments"
and "temporary upgrades" not be used interchangeably to avoid confusion in future contracts.
Mr. Biga explained that one of the provisions of the tentative agreement with AFSCME Union
Local 192 is that the Civil Service staff meet with the Union to clarify contract language.
Ms. Saylor restated the remedy requested is to cease the practice of accumulating non-
consecutive service time toward probation while working in temporary assignments. She
wanted it on record that the Union feels that the temporary appointment should be one
continuous period.
Ms. Lillibridge stated the Civil Service Commission has a long stand practice of looking at how
the contract language has been applied. A temporary assignment of less than six (6) months
does not give an employee status. Mr. Washington replied that in researching this situation,
he found a Custodian who during his initial probationary period, was transferred to Laborer and
returned to Custodian. That service time was put together toward his status as Custodian.
This situation differed from most of the 192 promotional opportunities because for most
promotions the probationary period is ninety (90) days. In Mr. Michael's case, he went from
Equipment Operator II to Engineering Assistant I and the probationary period was six (6)
months. Through no fault of his own, Mr. Michael was initially assigned for the amount of time
the Department needed him and was less than six (6) months.
Mr. Tatigian inquired how long Mr. Michael has been in the position. Mr. Michael responded
this was his third season. Ms. Mahoney responded that all of Mr. Michael's temporary
assignments were as Engineering Assistant I. Mr. Michael responded that the first time there
was a break in service was because DPW needed him to return to drive a truck. Mr. Tatigian
replied that the Union was no longer asking that Mr. Michael be demoted, but he thinks that
Pages 1228th Regular Meeting Septenber 28, 20D6
Mr. Campau suggested in his resolution that this matter be referred to the City and Union to
clarify the contract language in Section 21 so that the intent of both parties is identified and
acknowledge the Union is no longer requesting Mr. Michael be demoted.
Mr. Biga stated the negotiating teams will get back together to review contract language that
has been a problem to arrive at a mutually acceptable language. Ms. Saylor responded that
they wanted to make sure that no favoritism occurred. Mr. Biga respectfully disagreed with
several of the statements that were made and indicated he felt it would be best to go back to a
committee. He added there is a long standing practice of accumulating temporary time in
order to get step increases which not only require time in grade, but also a satisfactory
performance rating.
Mr. Michael commented that as a probationary Custodian he worked two weeks short of the
required six (6) months. When his temporary assignment was up he returned to Custodian
and served the remaining two (2) weeks and completed his probationary period. Then a test
came up for a promotional opportunity.
James Sturgill, Construction Worker II, stated this supports his argument that he was
discriminated against as stated in his grievance of November of 2005 (AFSCME Union Local
Grievance #05-29). Council 25 did not want to take his grievance to arbitration. He alleged a
supervisor violated Rule 32 of the Civil Service Commission Rules. He stated he has worked
for the City of Livonia for 23 years and he has not ever seen temporary service added to
complete a probationary period.
Mr. Michael stated there was something mentioned about wanting to give status to him after
working one month. He recalled that after serving the first three and half months a status
request letter was sent to Civil Service Department from Mr. Schron stating he was working
out, and Civil Service Department denied it because the six (6) month probationary time was
not met.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-148 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #06-09, Class Action, dated August 3, 2006, regarding status of Jeffrey
Michael, Engineering Assistant I, the Civil Service Commission does hereby refer
this matter back to the City and Union to clarity the contract language in Section 21
so that the intent of both parties is identified and acknowledges that the Union is no
longer requesting Mr. Michael be demoted.
James Sturgill, Construction Worker II, presented his request that his name be returned to the
Equipment Operator II (1228 p.) eligible list. He stated the Civil Service Commission Rules
were changed in 2001 where an employee could be removed from an eligible list for refusing a
permanent position. He believes the Rule is arbitrary and he thinks it needs to be rescinded.
He stated he took the test in good faith and understood that the eligible list would be in effect
for a year. He continued by staling prior to this, the only one having authority to remove an
employee from a list was the Civil Service Commission with due cause. He feels that just
because a person refuses a permanent position, which in his case would be a demotion, and
take $1.25 an hour pay cut to gain status in the classification, he would be willing to do this is if
Page 1228th Regular Meeting Septenber 28, 20D6
a temporary position opened up. He thought there were other people that felt the same way
he does.
Mr. Campau clarified that what Mr. Sturgill was asking the Civil Service Commission to do is
eliminate Item 14.C. of the Civil Service Commission Rules. Mr. Sturgill replied yes, he didn't
think it was fair. Mr. Campau stated there was a Committee that reviewed the Rules and that
all employees had a chance to review and make comments. Mr. Sturgill inquired what the
reason for the change in the Rule was. Mr. Campau replied when a person is offered a
permanent job and they don't take it, that was a good reason to remove them from the list. He
added that the employee has the choice if they want to take a demotion in order to be put into
a different job. Mr. Campau clarified that from a Management point of view, if you don't take
the job, why keep you on a list? He further inquired if a person didn't want the job in the first
place because they would lose a lot of money, why would that person continue to want that
job.
Mr. Sturgill explained to be an Equipment Operator III you need status as an Equipment
Operator II. An Equipment Operator III makes 1¢ less per hour than what he does. Ms.
Mahoney stated employees have to make a decision about working in a different classification
and the Rules cannot be changed just because somebody doesn't like them. Mr. Sturgill
asked Mr. Biga if somebody refuses a temporary assignment, if they are taken off the list. Mr.
Biga replied no. Mr. Biga added that the Rule wasn't changed from the original version of the
Rules to the new version. As far as he knew, the Rules have been in effect since 1960.
Mr. Sturgill said that this was the fourth time he had taken the test. Mr. Tatigian reiterated that
Mr. Sturgill is currently a Construction Worker II and that he makes more money than an
Equipment Operator II by $1.25 and 1¢ more than an Equipment Operator III. Mr. Tatigian
inquired why Mr. Sturgill was interested in becoming an Equipment Operator III. Mr. Sturgill
replied that his current job involves lifting heavy objects and his back isn't as strong as it used
to be. There may come a time in his life when he might like to run a backhoe. Ms. Mahoney
wanted to know how many times Mr. Sturgill had turned down this job. Mr. Sturgill responded
that he had taken the test four (4) times and had different positions offered to him.
Mr. Tatigian responded that the Civil Service Commission Rules make sense and if an
employee turns down a permanentjob, why should they be kept on a list?
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-149 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter dated
September 21, 2006 from James Sturgill, Construction Worker II, requesting to
have his name returned to the Equipment Operator II (1228 p.) eligible list, the Civil
Service Commission does hereby deny the request to reinstate Mr. Sturgill's name
to the Equipment Operator II (1228 p.) eligible list.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-150 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 1, 2006,
from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting a step increase for the Systems
Analyst II new hire, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the starting
wage at Step 3 of the classification's salary range with an increase to Step 3.5
after successful completion of probation.
Page ] 1228th Regular Meeting Seplarber 28, 2006
Mr. Biga summarized that Kenneth Widmer was a Custodian who look an examination for
Police Service Aide and that his pay rate as a Custodian was higher than the starting rate for
Police Service Aide. According to Article 5.1(4)(b) of the Compensation Plan, the Civil Service
Commission determines the appropriate rate of pay when someone moves from a higher paid
classification to a lower paid classification. The staff is recommending that he be placed at
Step 3, which would be slightly less than what Mr. Widmer made as a Custodian.
Mr. Tatigian inquired how long Mr. Widmer has been employed with the City of Livonia. Mr.
Biga replied five years.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-151 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of
September 14, 2006, from Civil Service Staff recommending the rate of pay for
Kenneth Widmer's appointment to the classification of Police Service Aide as a
result of an open -competitive examination, the Civil Service Commission does
hereby approve Mr. Widmer's starting wage at Step 3 of the Police Service Aide
classification.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-152 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 1, 2006,
from Michael Riesterer, Senior Fire Captain, as approved for submission by Shadd
A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting an extension of the three-year retirement limit
for excess vacation accrual, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve
the request with the understanding that Mr. Riesterers maximum vacation payout
will be decreased by the number of bonus vacation days he does not earn in the
three (3) calendar years prior to his revised retirement dale of December 31, 2009.
06-153 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 18,
2006, from Karen Szymula, Director of Legislative Affairs, as approved for
submission by Mayor Jack Engebretson, requesting an extension of the three-year
retirement limit for excess vacation accrual, the Civil Service Commission does
hereby approve the request with the understanding that Ms. Szymula's maximum
vacation payout will be decreased by the number of bonus vacation days she does
not earn in the three (3) calendar years prior to her revised retirement date of
December 31, 2009.
The Civil Service Commission review the letter of September 11, 2006, from Robert
Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting a blanket approval for carry over of excess vacation time
for Police Officers in the Patrol Bureau. Mr. Biga advised that the request for a blanket
approval for excess furlough carryover for police officers has never been done before by the
Civil Service Commission. Mr. Washington added that the Civil Service Commission gave the
Fire Department approval for some of their Firefighters who were in a use or lose situation for
vacation carryover but not at this level.
Ms. Lillibridge inquired if this was for all Police Department personnel. Mr. Biga informed her
that it was only for Police Officers in the Patrol Division because they have had difficulty in
Page 8 1228th Regular Meeting Septenber 28, 2006
getting adequate time off to burn up all of their vacation time and that it was a one-time
carryover into 2007.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-154 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of
September 11, 2006, from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting a Blanket
Approval for Excess Furlough Carry Over for Police Officers in the Patrol Division,
the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the request for a one (1) time
extension of excess annual vacation carryover to Police Officers in the Patrol
Division of the Police Department.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-155 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of August 30, 2006,
from Danielle M. Price, Police Dispatcher, as approved for submission by Robert
Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil
Service Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence
from September 22, 2006 through November 17, 2006, pursuant to Civil Service
Commission RULE 25, LEAVES, Section 25.5 Leaves of Absence.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-156 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 7, 2006,
from Laura Callen, Clerk I, as approved for submission by Kathleen Monroe, City
Librarian, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service
Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence from
September 7, 2006 through September 21, 2006, pursuant to Civil Service
Commission RULE 25, LEAVES, Section 25.5 Leaves of Absence.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-157 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 22, 2006, from
Gerald St. Amour, Meter Foreman, as approved for submission by James
Zoumbaris, Superintendent of Public Service, requesting to donate of vacation
days to William Marsh, Sewer Maintenance Worker I, the Civil Service Commission
does hereby approve the request to donate ten (10) vacation days, or a total of
eighty (80) hours in compliance with the February 8, 2006 policy regarding the use
of donated vacation time.
The Commission received and fled the expiring eligible list for the month of October 2006 —
Librarian II (1215 p.) and Program Supervisor (1216 p.).
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-158 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby
approve the eligible list for Sewer Foreman (1230 p.).
Page 9 1228th Regular Meeting Seplarber 28, 2006
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-159 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby
approve the eligible list for Clerk 1 (883 o.c.).
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-160 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby
approve the eligible list for Accountant III (1233 p.).
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
06-161 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby
approve the eligible list for Account Clerk II (1232 p.).
The Commission received and fled the following:
a. Letter of August 30, 2006 from Jack Engebretson, Mayor, to City Council, regarding
AFSCME Local 192, 2004 — 2007 Wage and Benefit Comparison.
b. Affirmative Action Report for August 2006.
C. Letter of September 26, 2006, from Robert F. Biga as approved for submission by
Jack Engebretson, Mayor, to City Council, regarding the proposed wage increase
for Parks and Recreation part-time staff.
Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
06-162 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 27,
2006, from Mayor Jack Engebretson, recommending salary and benefit
adjustments for Administrative & Professional, Exempt and Confidential
Classifications for the period December 1, 2004 through November 30, 2007, the
Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the proposed salary and benefit
adjustments and submits same to City Council for their review and approval.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was
RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 6:20 p.m.
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Harry C. Tatigian, Chairperson
Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner
Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner