Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1235th csc minutes1235' REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1235th Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, April 18, 2007. The meeting was called to order at 5:31 p.m. Members Present: Also Present: Mike Bailey, Vice -President, LFFU Eric I. Frankie, Attorney, AFSCME Union Local 192 Ken Grzembski, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Steve Makie, Building Maintenance Supervisor Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian John Pappas, Firefighter Roger Ponder, Custodian Harry C. Tatigian, Chairperson Charlotte S. Mahoney Ronald E. Campau Gregg Schultz, Attorney Norm Siira, Equipment Operator II James Sturgill, Construction Worker II Elaine Thayer, Account Clerk III Andrew Walker, Fire Marshal Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service Vickie Wuerth, Personnel Clerk Audrey Young, Equipment Operator 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 07-114 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1234th Regular Meeting held Wednesday, March 21, 2007, be approved as submitted. Harry Tatigian, Chairperson thanked AFSCME Union Local 192 and Roger Ponder, Custodian, for understanding that Grievance #06-14, dated July 19, 2006 regarding a letter being placed in Mr. Ponder's file, needed to be deferred until this meeting. He stated there are two issues regarding the Grievance. The first issue is whether or not the letter placed in Mr. Ponder's file constituted a letter of reprimand and if does, he advised it is removed from the file after 18 months pursuant to contract. The second issue is if it does not constitute a letter of reprimand, since the contract does specify that letters of reprimand are to come out of the file, under the rule of contract construction, when something is specified, other things are excluded, and does this Commission have the authority to withdraw it? Eric Frankie, Attorney for AFSCME Union Local 192 and Mr. Ponder, thanked the Commission for hearing this issue first on the agenda, and stated their position was that the letter from Mr. Makie dated June 23, 2006, to Mr. Ponder is a written reprimand. As Mr. Frankie understood it, under the contract between the City and the Union there is something known as an AVO, which is sort of like an instructional memorandum. This is not a general instructional memorandum that would apply to all Custodians. Rather, it singled out Mr. Ponder and criticized him for not following the directives of the facility manager, Tom Murphy. In June 2006, Mr. Ponder worked in the Livonia Community Recreation Center assigned to do cleaning Paget 1235^ Regular Meeting Apn118,2007 in the Mac gym area. The area was supposed to be closed. However, kids were brought in and the facility was in use when it shouldn't have been. Mr. Ponder was concerned, particularly when he is doing the cleaning, that it could create a situation based on the accumulation of water which could create a hazard for the kids and for those using the gym thereafter. He was also told by Tom Murphy that he should do the cleaning in a way that was not how he had done the cleaning up until that point. At the time, according to Mr. Ponder, it was not clear what the relationship was between Tom Murphy and his direct supervisors, Mike Boyle and the other Custodial Foremen. Mr. Ponders concern was about what Mr. Murphy was telling him to do and also for the safely of the kids. Mr. Ponder told Tom Murphy he wanted to contact Mike Boyle to make sure what was requested of him was ok. Mr. Frankie alleged that Mr. Murphy took issue with Mr. Ponder consulting with whom he believed, was his direct supervisor. Mike Boyle told Mr. Ponder to do the work the way Mr. Murphy wanted him to do it and Mr. Ponder thought that was the end of it until the June 19, 2006 letter came from Steve Makie stating Mr. Ponder should have done what Mr. Murphy said and that Mr. Ponder was insubordinate. Mr. Campau inquired where the insubordination reference was in the letter. Mr. Frankie replied it was within the first paragraph of Mr. Makie's June 23, 2006 memo. Mr. Frankie read the paragraph. Mr. Campau responded that Mr. Frankie was inferring that Mr. Ponder was being insubordinate. Ms. Mahoney wanted to know if Mr. Frankie was paraphrasing the letter because what she heard him read and in looking at the copy she had in front of her were somewhat different. Mr. Wilson indicated that there was an original letter and following the original letter there was a labor-management meeting where items of concern were pointed out and the department offered to re -write the letter. The re -written letter was sent to Mr. Ponder and the Union and Mr. Wilson never heard back as to what the problem was with the second letter. Ms. Mahoney clarified that the letter that Mr. Frankie read was the second letter, but the Commission was only given the original letter. Mr. Wilson characterized the difference in the second letter was it was softened up language in response to the concems that were expressed by Mr. Ponder. Mr. Wilson noted that both letters were retained in the Department file because he was never notified what was wrong with the second letter. Mr. Frankie stated that both letters were wrong from their perspective and he didn't see how you could not view these letters as a reprimand. Mr. Tatigian asked that the last paragraph of the letter be addressed. Gregg Schultz, Attorney for the City, responded that the last paragraph of the original letter was one of the items that was cleaned up in the second letter. Mr. Schultz thought this matter was settled until he heard just recently that this grievance was a Civil Service Commission agenda item. He advised that at the conclusion of the labor management meeting the City advised Mr. Ponder that they would revise the letter. He further advised that since the City has stated the letter was not disciplinary in nature, it can not be used for discipline. Mr. Schultz stated that the letter was not in the official Civil Service Department personnel file, only the file that is kept in the Department and as stated in the Step 2 official City grievance response, no disciplinary action has been taken. A copy of these directives has not been placed in the Civil Service Department Personnel File and there is nothing in the law that prevents an employer from keeping a record of some incident that happened. Mr. Ponder addressed this by infonning the Commission that there is a separate file that is kept in the Department and the file is reviewed if you apply for another job, a supervisor from another department might read it and conclude that the person had problems which might Page 1235'^ Regular Meeting Apn118,2007 deter him from hiring him. This is the reason Mr. Ponder wanted the letter removed. Mr. Schultz pointed out that the official AFSCME Union Local 192 grievance form leaves a spot for listing what provision of the contract that has been violated. No section of the contract was listed as being violated on the official grievance form. Mr. Frankie cited it as a violation of Departmental Rule 5.21. Mr. Schultz advised that 5.21 is what they are saying we violated, which states, "An employee shall not refuse to obey the directions or orders of any foreman or any other supervisory personnel; nor shall any employee either induce or attempt to induce or attempt to induce any other employee to refuse to obey the directions or orders of any foreman or other supervisory personnel." He stated that had nothing to do with it and in fact, Mr. Ponder just indicated that he didn't know whether he reports to the facility manager at the Recreation Center or the Foreman over at DPW and if that is the case, that is the exact reason they have the AVO. Mr. Ponder disagreed with the statement. Mr. Tatigian inquired where the AVOs are kept and Mr. Biga responded that they are kept at the Department level and there is nothing in the contract about this. Mr. Schultz added there is nothing in the law to prevent the Department from keeping their own records and Bullard-Plawicki would not recognize that document. If a subpoena was received, they would only release information contained in the official personnel file that is maintained in the Civil Service Department. Mr. Ponder stated that from the very start he didn't think he did anything wrong. He stated he reported to work that day and got the floor cleaner. The gym was full of kids. On top of the maintenance schedule it said that the gym was supposed to be closed. He called the Building Supervisor who replied Ms. Gamber was in charge of the schedule and she must not have noticed it was closed but he would find out if they want it to be cleared or if they wanted him to skip doing the floor. At that time, Mr. Murphy got involved and he wanted only half of the gym floor done where no children were playing. Mr. Ponder advised that the problem with doing that is the machine is like a Zamboni. It drops water on the floor and it needs to be suctioned quickly. Mr. Ponder explained the floor is a floating floor with plastic squares and it is not sealed. If the water isn't suctioned quickly and someone roller blades on it later, water can come up and someone can fall. If someone wants to exercise and lies down, there might be wet spots. Mr. Ponder stated that Mr. Murphy, who has never cleaned the floor with this kind of machine, directed him to do this and he tried to explain what could happen, so he told Mr. Murphy he would call Mr. Boyle and inform him that he wanted it done. After Mr. Boyle said to do whatever Mr. Murphy needed doing, the children had finished in the gym and it was cleared out. He was able to do the work the way he felt it should be done. Mr. Ponder again stated he didn't do anything wrong and he didn't deserve to receive the letter, even if it wasn't in the official personnel file. He didn't want other supervisors to read it. Mr. Ponder didn't like the letter because it says he didn't do what he was supposed to do. Mr. Ponder stated he is not that kind of worker and he stated he tries to do a good job. Also, if there is public safety involved, being on the safety committee, he doesn't want to see someone slip and fall. Because Mr. Murphy has never cleaned the floor and doesn't know the characteristics of the machine and because he has been doing it for over a year, Mr. Ponder thought it was only fair that he raise a flag and if he didn't, he wouldn't be a responsible citizen or worker. Mr. Frankie followed up on Mr. Schultz's statement about this document being in the employee's file and directed the Commission to page 15 of the AFSCME Union Local 192 contract which deals with the disciplinary procedure, specifically reprimands, which states in part, "an Employee may, if he so desires, request the application of the grievance procedure for the purpose of reviewing the same. Oral reprimands which are reduced to writing shall be retained in the Employee's file both in the department and the Civil Service Department file for a period of six (6) months from the date of occurrence of the oral reprimand and then removed. Written Page 1235^ Regular Meeting Arn110,2007 reprimands shall be recorded in the Employee's department and Civil Service Department file for a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of occurrence of the written reprimand and then removed.' Mr. Frankie contended that if what the City's attorney is saying is true and this is not either an oral or written reprimand, then this should not be in the employee file, per the contract. Mr. Tatigian reminded Mr. Frankie that the letter was in the Department file, not the official Civil Service Personnel file. Mr. Schultz advised that just because the contract says what discipline goes in the employee file doesn't mean that you can't put something else in the file. Mr. Frankie said Mr. Schultz was taking the position that this was not a written reprimand or not an oral reprimand. Mr. Tatigian advised he would like to see the letter removed eighteen (18) months after it was issued, so the employee wouldn't suffer more for an AVO than he would if it were an actual written reprimand. Mr. Campau stated he could not agree that this is a letter of reprimand and he did not see the Commission as having authority over Departmental files. Mr. Wilson preferred to not add the statement from the Foreman because what has been characterized is different than what the Foreman is saying. It is a moot point because this is not discipline and not in his official Personnel File. Mr. Frankie added that there are two (2) letters in Mr. Ponder's Departmental file. Ms. Mahoney stated there ought to be only one letter in the Departmental file and it should be up to Mr. Ponder to determine which of the two he would like left in the file. Mr. Wilson had no objection to having one letter in the file. Mr. Schultz advised that was their understanding when they left the labor management meeting that the second letter clarified the issues. Mr. Wilson replied that the only reason the first letter was still in the file is because they sent the second one and heard nothing back. Mr. Ponder stated the rewritten letter wasn't any better than the first one. Mr. Schultz stated if you tell the Department they can't keep something in the file, they will be before the Commission more often and he didn't think there was anything in the law that prevents the Department from keeping notes in a file. Ken Grzembski, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, commented that the Department file is used when an employee evaluation is done or for a job promotion. Mr. Campau again stated the Commission has no control over Departmental files. He further staled that nowhere in the contract or the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations does it say the Civil Service Commission can take something out of the Departmental files. Mr. Biga stated the contract only deals with removal of an oral or written reprimand in both the Departmental file and the Personnel file. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-115 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance, #06-14, dated July 19, 2006, from Roger Ponder, Custodian, regarding a letter placed in his file, and having discussion with Roger Ponder; Eric Frankie, Attorney, AFSCME Union Local 192; Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service; Gregg Schultz, Attorney for the City of Livonia; and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance with the understanding that there should only be one letter in the Department file. Pages 1235^ Regular Meeting Apn118,2007 The Commission received and fled the Temporary Report for March 2007. The Commission received and fled the Non -Resident Report as of April 1, 2007. Andrew Walker, Fire Marshal, explained that when he submitted his request to carry over vacation time he was in error of his understanding of the contract. He indicated he thought vacation could be carried over and if he had understood the language of the Rules and Regulations better he wouldn't have used his compensatory time; he would have used vacation time. He understood that he didn't use enough of his vacation time but he just asked for the compensatory time that he used to be converted to vacation time and those hours be returned to his bank. The excess vacation time that he didn't use would be deemed lost. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Biga if this type of request had ever been granted before. Mr. Biga replied not to his knowledge. Mr. Walker asked for consideration since he has been an employee for 27 years. When he submitted his letter he didn't request specific time, he asked for an extension of his vacation time. He stated the decision was up to the Commission, had he understood more fully, he certainly would have used vacation time instead of compensatory time. Mr. Tatigian clarified that Mr. Walker used 99.5 hours of comp time instead of vacation time. Ms. Mahoney inquired if Mr. Walker would be paid at retirement for his compensatory time. Mr. Biga responded that yes, certain labor contracts have compensatory time and employees do get paid for comp time. Mr. Campau inquired why he wanted to change the comp time. Mr. Walker explained that he would lose his vacation time and comp time is something he could carry over from year to year. Ms. Mahoney advised that employees should check with their contract and their Union in order to make a decision as to which bank to use. Mr. Walker agreed this was his mistake but stated this was new to him. Ms. Mahoney clarified that if Mr. Walker had used vacation time instead of comp time that the comp time hours would be paid out to him at the time of retirement. Mr. Tatigian asked to hear from Elaine Thayer, Account Clerk III. Ms. Thayer explained that Mr. Walker is losing 109.5 hours and Mr. Walker's initial retirement letter was in April of 2003. In his initial letter Mr. Walker only allowed himself 2 years for carry over and he is allowed 3 years. Ms. Thayer didn't notice that error in his letter at the end of 2005. She staled she sends out letters that tell the employees how many hours they have to use of vacation accumulation at the end of the year because they have gone into an extension of their three (3) years based on the Civil Service Commission Rules and Regulations. When she realized that Mr. Walker did not allow himself the three years, she called him on November 1". She also called Jan in Civil Service advising that he should have allowed himself the three years and that his letter should be revised. He did not have to do an extension letter at that point. Ms. Thayer called him and told Mr. Walker that he did not have to do an extension letter and he didn't have to comply with the letter he received from her in February of 2005. At that point in 2005 Mr. Walker had not used the hours she told him to use and he probably would have lost hours that year. On January 31, 2006 Elaine stated she called Mr. Walker again and told him that he would get another letter and this time he needed to adhere to it and that he needed to do an extension letter. Ms. Thayer informed the Page 1235^ Regular Meeting Arnl10,2007 Commission there are nine (9) other employees beside Mr. Walker that have lost hours over the years and no one has been before the Commission asking for the hours to be returned. Ms. Thayer reiterated that Mr. Walker had been notified far beyond anybody else in the City. Mr. Walker responded that after receiving that letter he put in for an extension and he assumed that he was going to be allowed to carry over additional vacation days, not understanding that when he was told that he had to resubmit his letter, he thought he could then begin accumulating hours again, which is why he used the compensatory time instead of vacation time. Ms. Thayer informed the Commission that Mr. Walker submitted his letter in May of 2005 and in January of 2006 she reviewed the hours and prepared the letters. She sent a letter to Mr. Walker on February 2, 2006, clearly stating that he had to use a certain number of hours or he would lose them and he did not comply with that. Mr. Walker stated if he would have understood that when he submitted his letter to the Commission, that he wouldn't be allowed to carry over time, he would have used vacation time instead of compensatory time. He then asked the Commission to make a ruling. Ms. Thayer advised that if the Commission allowed this for Mr. Walker they needed to take into consideration there are nine (9) other employees who should also have their hours restored. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-116 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of March 27, 2007, from Andrew Walker, Fire Marshal, as approved for submission by Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting to change compensatory time used to vacation time used in 2006, and having discussion with Mr. Walker; Elaine Thayer, Account Clerk III; and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the request, based on Civil Service Commission RULE 25.1(f). Mr. Biga informed the Commission that Mr. Bruce Whitcombe passed away earlier this week and therefore, the letter of March 29, 2007, from Robert Schron, City Engineer, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence for Mr. Whitcombe would only need to be approved through the date of his death, which was April 17, 2007. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-117 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of March 29, 2007, from Robert J. Schron, City Engineer and the letter of March 27, 2007, from Bruce Whitcombe, Engineering Assistant I, as approved for submission by Robert Schron, City Engineer, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence for the period of March 26, 2007, through April 17, 2007. The Commission expressed their condolences to Mr. Whitcombe's family. Pagel 1235^ Regular Meeting ApnllB,2007 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-118 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 9, 2007, from Ronald Haskill, Custodian, as approved for submission by Patrick A. Hogan, Director of Public Works, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence for the period of March 2, 2007, through April 15, 2007. Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, staled Firefighter John Pappas was not eligible for a step increase at the previous Commission meeting because he just came off probation. He advised that Mr. Pappas successfully completed his probation and his request to the Commission is based upon his previous work experience. Mr. Biga clarified that the step increase would be effective at the completion of Mr. Pappas' probation, not retroactive to January 2007. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-119 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental Correspondence of March 30, 2007, from Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting a step increase for John Pappas, Firefighter, the Civil Service Commission does hereby grant a one-step pay increase effective March 20, 2007, from step 2 to step 3. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-120 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 11, 2007, from Val Vandersloot, City Clerk, requesting an extension of employment for a temporary Clerk -Typist I, the Civil Service Commission does hereby extend the employment of the temporary Clerk -Typist until the establishment of the Clerk - Typist 1 (889 o.c.) eligible list. There were no reported expiring eligible lists for the month of May 2007. Yvonne Lillibridge, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, objected to revising the qualifications by adding status as a Water Operations Mechanic II to the requirements for the Equipment Operator III (1250 p.) examination, which were approved at the March 21, 2007 Civil Service Commission meeting. The Union would like to see the series of Equipment Operator III upheld the way it has been in the past, wherein an employee needed to have status as an Equipment Operator II to qualify to sit for an Equipment Operator III test. After checking the records, she found 14 Equipment Operator II's who would like a promotional opportunity for Equipment Operator III. The Union wants to see the integrity of the classification series upheld, as it has been for many years. Debra Jamieson, Equipment Operator II, stated she does not intend to sign for the Equipment Operator III promotional examination, but she reviewed past announcements for the Equipment Operator III going back to 1998 and status as a Water Operations Mechanic 11 was Page 1235^ Regular Meeting Apri118,2007 never on the previous announcements. She understood that prior to distributing the announcements the Union looks at the changes in the qualifications. The qualifications were changed and it wasn't a problem that they added the Water Operations Mechanic II to the list of qualifications. When this issue was discussed at last month's meeting it wasn't a problem. Now all of a sudden it is a problem because someone has written a letter to have status in another classification added to that. That in turn, would open it up to include more people to take the test that currently are in a position that perform Equipment Operator II work all the time, even if they don't have Equipment Operator II status. Ms. Jamieson continued that the City has groups of people that are not required by the Federal government to have a CDL, because the vehicle they drive in the regular job, does not require them to have a CDL. They have to have a CDL here because they might have to drive a dump truck or a vehicle or equipment that is required to have a CDL. They are required to have a CDL but they are not getting any benefit for that. They are not allowed to take certain tests because it is not within their series, so they are actually being denied certain awards that other classifications are allowed to have. Ms. Jamieson stated that the Construction Worker It's do the job of an Equipment Operator II but they are not allowed to have the status of an Equipment Operator II. All these people are asking to be allowed to have a promotional opportunity and she supported the inclusion of the Water Operations Mechanic II and the Construction Worker II to the list of employees eligible to take the test. No" Siira was opposed to the change because there are people who have taken pay cuts to be Equipment Operator II's in order to take the test for Equipment Operator III. He further stated Water Operations Mechanic II's shouldn't be included. There are four (4) Water Operations Mechanic II's and currently there are three people with status as Equipment Operator It's that have gone over to be Water Operations Mechanic It's so it was their understanding that when this was first brought up that everybody over there had status at some point. He added he would like to see this return to just the Equipment Operator II's taking the test. Mr. Tatigian stated that 80% of the test is a performance test and asked if a person was qualified to do the job performance -wise, shouldn't they be afforded the opportunity? Mr. Siira responded that all the Equipment Operator It's have the opportunity to take training for the test. Mr. Tatigian asked if Mr. Siira objected to the Water Operations Mechanic II's being listed and Mr. Siira said he did. Ms. Lillibridge asked to clarify something Ms. Jamieson said. When the DPS administration sends the letter to the Commission requesting a promotional exam, the Union is given a copy as a courtesy, and her signature is there only that she reviewed it, not that she approved it. She shares the information with the executive board and with the individuals in the department that it might affect. If the Union and/or the individuals have a problem with the qualifications, they come before the Commission and speak. She recalled speaking against adding the Water Operations Mechanic II on the Equipment Operator III announcement last month. Mr. Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service, stated the department felt that any of the three classifications can test for the Equipment Operator III if they have the knowledge and the skills. Opening this up to a greater pool of candidates can only help. Ms. Mahoney stated that people who are outside of the Equipment Operator series would affect the chances for anybody in the series working toward Equipment Operator III and they don't want to compete with someone who hasn't been in the Equipment Operator 11 position. Mr. Siira stated the Page 1235^ Regular Meeting Apn118,2007 Union contends that with proper training anybody could be qualified for any of the City jobs. Mr. Siira explained that employees try to maneuver in their jobs so as they see people getting ready to retire, they try to get in positions where they can take upgrades. He reiterated that there are fourteen (14) Equipment Operator II's currently. Ken Grzembski, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, stated the wage difference between an Equipment Operator II and an Equipment Operator III is approximately $1.30 per hour. A Construction Worker II makes slightly more than an Equipment Operator III. So does a Water Operations Mechanic II. The employees currently working as Equipment Operator II's hoping to move up in the series, are making $1.30 less than the other people they want to let in the pool. The progression has been from an Equipment Operator II to an Equipment Operator III. Ms. Mahoney inquired that if someone was a Construction Worker II or Water Operations Mechanic II, would they already be making more than what they would be making as an Equipment Operator III. Mr. Wilson said that wasn't necessarily true. They may have different overtime opportunities. He also pointed out that you don't have to be an Equipment Operator I to become an Equipment Operator II. That change was made many years ago. Ms. Jamieson pointed out that only two (2) Equipment Operator II's were present at the meeting. She said that including these two classifications (Construction Worker II and Water Operations Mechanic II) will open up the pool and make it better. The Construction Worker II's have to maintain a CDL to keep their job even though the Construction Worker II job itself and the vehicles they use on a daily basis by law, does not require them to have a CDL. The City requires them to have a CDL so they can be utilized as an Equipment Operator II whenever the City wishes with no change in benefits or with no extra pay. Mr. Wilson stated that change occurred through negotiations. Mr. Campau stated his philosophy has always been to try to be as inclusive as possible in promotional examination qualifications. Mr. Biga recalled a Commission determination from years ago when the classifications of Equipment Operator I, II and III were a different structure than what they are today. The old Commission resolution said that if persons in other classifications operate equipment similar to a dump truck, served at least six (6) months in that classification, they were deemed to have status as an Equipment Operator I which is an Equipment Operator II today. One of these classifications was a Construction Worker II or a Concrete Repairman. So a Construction Worker II who had six months in the job of Construction Worker II was deemed to have status as a truck driver, which would make them qualified, but there are other classifications in the DPW that have a similar situation; Water Operations Mechanic I. Norm Siira stated he remembered what Mr. Biga was referring to and the six (6) month timeframe was for the City's benefit so that people who are in a classification could operate those vehicles, but it excluded people who were not on a current list or have permanent status. That was the difference. He stated he was a tree trimmer and had to move down to Equipment Operator II in order to take the Equipment Operator III examination. Mr. Siira continued that he had status as an Equipment Operator II while he was a tree trimmer, but he could not take a permanent Equipment Operator II job unless he passed the Equipment Operator 11 lest to get status. He believed there are two types of status where the City is Page 10 1235^ Regular Meeting Arn118,2007 concerned. Mr. Tatigian responded that they are talking about Civil Service and that Civil Service is a merit system. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-121 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of March 29, 2007, from Patrick A. Hogan, Director of Public Works, and Brian Wilson, Assistant Superintendent of Public Service, requesting a revision to the qualifications for the Equipment Operator III (1250 p.) examination, which were approved at the March 21, 2007 Civil Service Commission meeting, 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 the announcement, are: Employed in the Department of Public Works; and Have regular status as an Equipment Operator 11, Water Operations Mechanic II or Construction worker 11; and Possess a valid Group "A" or "B" Commercial Drivers License with Air Brake Endorsement and must have or be eligible for a valid Industrial Truck Driving Permit for operation of a forklift. An employee in this classification is subject to all requirements of the Federal Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991, as amended. Able to lift in excess of fifty (50) pounds. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Performance -80% Departmental Rating -20% Candidates must pass the Performance Examination in order to be placed on the eligible list. Pursuant to AFSCME Local 192, Promotions 20.13. in competitive examinations which include Departmental Ratings, the Departmental Rating from 0 to 100 will count 20% of the examination, but a score under 70 will not disqualify the candidate from continuing in the process. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-122 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve a passing point of 70 or 70% of the maximum of 100 for the written test for Sewer Maintenance Worker 1 (1244 p.). Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-123 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve a passing point of 70 or 70% of the maximum of 100 questions for the written test for Service Representative (Water) (1248 p.). Page 11 1235^ Regular Meeting Arnl 18, 2007 Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-124 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Computer Administrator II (1251 p.) as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-125 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Custodian (Female) (886 o.c.) as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-126 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Data Processor (1252 p.) as submitted. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-127 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Police Sergeant (1238 p.) as submitted. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-128 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Police Lieutenant (1239 p.) as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-129 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Sewer Maintenance Worker 1 (1244 p.) as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-130 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the eligible list for Water Operations Mechanic 1 (1247 p.) as submitted. The Commission received and filed the following: Council Resolution from the March 14, 2007 meeting, with minutes to be approved March 28, 2007. Affirmative Action Report for March 2007. Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian, was present to discuss the proposed wage increases for temporary Library positions. Ms. Mahoney inquired if the Library budget covered the increase to which Ms. Monroe replied in the current budget year there were a number of positions that were vacant and the wage increase would not be a problem. She added that for the next budget year that would be something they would plan for and there should be sufficient funds available for that. Page 12 1235^ Regular Meeting Apn118,2007 Mr. Tatigian inquired if these were negotiated Union position and Mr. Biga confirmed they were not. Mr. Biga said that the Civil Service Department reviewed rates for comparable classification in neighboring communities and these wage rates are in line. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-131 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of April 12, 2007, from Robert Martin, Personnel Analyst I, to Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, regarding proposed wage increases for Temporary Library positions, and having discussion with Kathleen Monroe, City Librarian and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the increase in wages for Student Page, Library Page, Substitute Student Librarian and Substitute Librarian, to be effective July 1, 2007, as follows and submits same to the City Council for review and approval: Effective 711107 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-132 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 16, 2007, from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to establish a new eligible list for Police Service Aide, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS By the closing date of this announcement, applicants must: 1. Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in the United States; and 2. Be at least eighteen (18) years old; and 3. Have a high school diploma or a valid equivalency certificate, and 4. Possess and maintain a valid drivers license; and 5. Not be an immediate family member of a swom officer employed by the Livonia Police Department. (Immediate family member includes: Spouse, Flat Rate Flat Rate at Flat Rate at 6 Months 100 Hours Student Page $7.15 $7.65 Library Page $8.15 $9.00 Substitute Student $12.00 $13.00 Librarian Substitute Librarian $16.00 $18.00 Effective 711108 Student Page $7.40 $7.90 Library Page $8.40 $9.25 Substitute Student $12.00 $13.00 Librarian Substitute Librarian $16.00 $18.00 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was 07-132 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 16, 2007, from Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to establish a new eligible list for Police Service Aide, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of examination and weights: QUALIFICATIONS By the closing date of this announcement, applicants must: 1. Be a citizen of the United States or resident alien with the right to work in the United States; and 2. Be at least eighteen (18) years old; and 3. Have a high school diploma or a valid equivalency certificate, and 4. Possess and maintain a valid drivers license; and 5. Not be an immediate family member of a swom officer employed by the Livonia Police Department. (Immediate family member includes: Spouse, Page 13 1235^ Regular Meeting Apnl 18, 2007 Child, Step -Child, Mother, Father, Sister, Step -Mother, Step -Father, Sister-in-law (married to Brother), Brother-in-law (married to Sister), Grandparent, Grandchild, Father -in -Law, Mother -in -Law, or member of the Employee's household.) Be free from any physical defects, chronic diseases, organic diseases, organic or functional conditions, or mental and emotional instabilities which may tend to impair the efficient performance of duties or which might endanger the lives of others or the individual employee; and Possess an MCOLES Physical Agility or a United States Army or Marines physical fitness test certificate, illustrating successful completion, dated within the preceding twelve (12) months of the closing date of this announcement. Possess normal hearing, normal color vision, and normal visual functions and acuity in accordance with the Civil Service Commission approved visual acuity standard adopted January 17, 2002 as attached. By the closing date of the announcement, each applicant must submit a written statement from a physician, optometrist, or ophthalmologist giving the applicant's visual acuity in each eye corrected and uncorrected. (Eye examination must be within the preceding six (6) months of the closing date of the announcement.) Surgically corrected vision may not be acceptable, i.e. radial keratotomy. PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS Written Test — 50% Interview — 50% NOTE: A minimum of the fifteen (15) qualified applicants with the highest passing score on the Written Test will be invited to the Interview part of examination. Applicants must pass the Written Test and Interview parts of the examination in order to be placed on the eligible list. Upon a motion by Ms. Mahoney, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 07-133 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 16, 2007, from Linda McCann, Director of Community Resources, requesting an extension of the employment of a temporary Clerk -Typist, the Civil Service Commission does hereby extend the employment until the establishment of the Clerk -Typist 1 (889 o.c.) eligible list. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Harry C. Tatigian, Chairperson Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner