Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1271st CSC Meeting (April)1271°' REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 127V Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday, April 21, 2010. The meeting was called to order at 5:35 p.m. Members Present: Also Present Dawn Borregard, Assistant City Assessor Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Steven Schoonover, Vice President, AFSCME Union Local 192 Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian Ronald E. Campau Sue Wenner, Account Clerk I Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10-311 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1270th Regular Meeting held Wednesday, March 17, 2010, be approved as submitted. Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, advised the Commission that the Amendment to the Rules and Regulations regarding the termination of holiday pay for Seasonal Laborers was posted for thirty (30) days for comment. That period has expired without the Civil Service Department receiving any comments so that change in the Rules will go into effect as of today. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10312 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of March 30, 2010, from Larry Rushing, Code Enforcement Officer, approved for submission by Alex Bishop, Director of Inspection, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of Mr. Rushing's request for an unpaid medical leave of absence not to exceed ninety (90) calendar days, beginning May 11, 2010, subject to Mr. Rushing providing medical documentation from his physician. 10313 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of March 24, 2010, from Michael Novak, Senior Police Officer, as approved for submission by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting carryover of vacation days based on a projected retirement date of March 24, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval to carry over excess vacation days; Page 1271° Regular Meeting Arn121,2010 AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum number of days permitted for payoff at retirement is sixty-eight (68) as set forth in the Livonia Police Officers Association contract, Article 22.7., Vacation Accrual and Civil Service Commission Rule 25, LEAVES, Section 25.1 Annual Leave (Vacation), paragraph (f); AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum number of days is based upon the employee qualifying for the bonus vacation days for not using more than five (5) sick leave days annually in the three (3) years immediately prior to retirement; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum days payable will be reduced by the number of bonus vacation days for which Mr. Novak does not qualify. 10314 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 19, 2010, from Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III, as approved for submission by Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, requesting carryover of vacation days based on a projected retirement date of April 21, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval to carry over excess vacation days; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum number of days permitted for payoff at retirement is fifty-seven (57) as set forth in Civil Service Commission Rule 25, LEAVES, Section 25.1 Annual Leave (Vacation), paragraph (f); AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum number of days is based upon the employee qualifying for the bonus vacation days for not using more than five (5) sick leave days annually in two (2) of the three (3) years immediately prior to retirement; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum days payable will be reduced by the number of bonus vacation days for which Ms. Guisbert does not qualify. 10-315 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of April 8, 2010, from Rondi Andersen, Computer Administrator II, as approved for submission by Daniel Putman, Director of Information Systems, requesting carryover of vacation days based on a projected retirement date of April 8, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval to carry over excess vacation days; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum number of days permitted for payoff at retirement is fifty-seven (57) as set forth in Civil Service Commission Rule 25, LEAVES, Section 25.1 Annual Leave (Vacation), paragraph (f); AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum number of days is based upon the employee qualifying for the bonus vacation days for not using more Page 1271" Regular Meeting Apn121,2010 than five (5) sick leave days annually in two (2) of the three (3) years immediately prior to retirement; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the maximum days payable will be reduced by the number of bonus vacation days for which Ms. Andersen does not qualify. 10-316 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the passing point of 67 or 67% out of a maximum score of 100 on the written test for Engineering Assistant 1 (1307 p.). 10317 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Police Sergeant (1299 p.). 10316 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Police Lieutenant (1300 p.). 10-319 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Engineering Assistant I (1307 p.). The Commission received and fled the following: Status of Temporary Employees Report for March 2010. Non -Resident Report as of April 1, 2010. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of April 1, 2010. Affirmative Action Report for March 1, 2010. Upon a motion by Mr. Carl seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10-320 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the expiring eligible lists for the month of April 2010 — Clerk -Typist 1 (889 o.c.) and Equipment Operator II (1289 p), the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the extension of the Clerk -Typist 1 (889 o.c.) eligible list for six (6) months to November 17, 2010 and the extension of the Equipment Operator II (1289 p.) eligible list for six (6) months to November 7, 2010. Removal of names from active eligible list report for the month of March 2010: Equipment Operator II (1289 p.) Arica Flores Page 1271° Regular Meeting Apn121,2010 Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, explained that the Mayor has recommended creating stipends for the Assistant City Assessor and the Commercial Industrial Appraiser for perfonning additional duties. This would necessitate a change in the City's Compensation Plan and require the approval of the City Council. The Mayor will review the positions in the Assessors Office for possible salary adjustments in the future. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10321 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of March 19, 2010, from Mayor Jack E. Kirksey and the memorandum of April 21, 2010 from Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, regarding the creation of stipends for employees in the Assessor's office assuming temporary duties, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve the change in the Compensation Plan effective August 1, 2009, to establish an annual stipend of $8,000.00 for the position of Assistant City Assessor while assuming the functions of the City Assessor, and an annual stipend of $6,500.00 for the Commercial and Industrial Appraiser while assuming the functions as a Level 4 Assessor, such payments to be made on a bi-weekly basis while so assigned to such duties, and submits same to City Council for their review and approval. Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, presented AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-10, dated April 16, 2010, from Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, regarding his request to be released from work for fatigue time. He summarized that Mr. Trybus was called into work at 1:30 a.m. on Monday and worked until approximately 8:45 a.m. Mr. Locke cited Article 32. L., where an employee is called back to work between two (2) work days and Mr. Trybus requested to be released on fatigue time because he had concluded the duties that he came in for. His Supervisor, Mr. Haskins, informed him that he would not release him under fatigue time. However, he could release him if he used his own personal leave banks. The Union's position is that since his Supervisor let Mr. Trybus leave, using his own bank, there was no emergency. Mr. Locke also cited 32.F. of the 192 contract, where if an employee works 16 hours or more he should be released for eight (8) hours. The remedy requested by the Union is to have Mr. Trybus's leave bank restored. Mr. Wilson explained that on Monday, February 22, 2010, a snow storm occurred and there were several snow plow operators that were called into work at 1:30 a.m. and as is the standard practice in the Roads section, when 7:00 a.m. came along, the employees continued working into their nomlal work day. At approximately 8:00 a.m. Mr. Trybus sought out the Roads Supervisor and insisted that he needed to be sent home on fatigue time. The Supervisor informed Mr. Trybus that the City was not in a position to send the snow plow operators home in the middle of the snow event. When Mr. Trybus indicated he could not perform his duties, he was told if he felt he had to leave, he would have to use a leave bank if he wanted to be paid. If the Supervisor had sent one employee home on fatigue time, there would be many more employees that came into work at 130 a.m. who would be rightfully asking to be allowed to go home. The Union did agree in regards to sending employees home on fatigue time or continuing to have them work, that it is solely a Management decision. He stated the Supervisor did not violate the contract. In regards to an employee Page 1271" Regular Meeting Arnl21,2010 saying to their Supervisor they need to go home because they are sick or have a family emergency, they are not going to send that employee home on fatigue time while the rest of the employees continue working. Mr. Wilson indicated that the rest of the employees were sent home on fatigue time after they had been on the clock for over twelve (12) hours. At the time Mr. Trybus approached the Supervisor, he had been working fora little over six (6) hours. Mr. Locke rebutted and stated it didn't really matter how long you had been on the clock; the purpose of the fatigue time, especially when called in between work days, is that your sleep schedule has been disrupted. He explained that Mr. Trybus had little to no sleep when he was called in and by 8:00 a.m. he had been awake for 25 to 26 hours and that was why the provision was put in the contract for the protection of the City, the employee and the residents. He reiterated that if there was an emergency, Management wouldn't have allowed Mr. Trybus to use vacation time to go home. The Union grieves issues based on what has happened, not what could happen. The fact is that Mr. Trybus was the only one who approached Management to say he was tired and would like to be released. Mr. Tatigian inquired if an employee was released on fatigue time, did they get paid? Mr. Wilson confirmed that they do. He explained that Mr. Trybus was paid overtime from 130 a.m. until 7:00 a.m. and then at 7:00 a.m. he started his normal work day so he was on straight time. But Mr. Trybus asked at 8:00 a.m. to be released for seven (7) hours with pay for fatigue time. In regards to practices in the Water Department, Mr. Wilson said he spoke with Supervision and they informed him it was very rare that some people would go home on fatigue time and some would stay. What they have done is solicit volunteers that would stay into the regular work portion of the day. Ms. Mahaney inquired where this language was in the contract and Mr. Wilson referred to the Step 2 response, Union contract Section 321, provides, "An Employee called back to work between two (2) workdays and subsequently released, will be released for a six (6) hour period before being required to report for his next regular workday. 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. An Employee shall not normally be required to report back for less than two (2) hours." Mr. Locke said that it is called release time, but they have referred to this as fatigue time since he has been employed with the City. If any portion of time employees are released happens to be their normal regular work time, they are paid for it. Mr. Locke added that if there are less than two (2) hours remaining in the day, an employee is not normally required to report back to work. Mr. Wilson again stated it is a Managerial decision whether an employee is released or not. Mr. Locke stated the Union agrees with that, however, Management has never allowed an employee to go home and use their leave bank. Management has said there is an emergency and we need you to continue to work, so if there is not an emergency and the employee is sent home, there are two Articles that provide for that. Mr. Carl recalled a previous grievance involving Mr. Trybus having a prior medical condition. Mr. Wilson informed the Commission that Mr. Trybus has nothing medically on file at this time that would prevent him from working. Mr. Campau asked if there were any special circumstances. Mr. Wilson replied that the latest medical documentation that Mr. Trybus provided to the City of Livonia is that there are no restrictions on him working overtime. Previously there had been restrictions from Mr. Trybus's doctor. Mr. Wilson reiterated they did not violate the contract and it is the norm for snow plow operators to Page 12]1°Regular Meeang Arn121,2010 continue working into their regular workday. The rest of the employees were released at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Wilson also reiterated that if somebody is going to tell their Supervisor they are sick and they need to go home, or they have a family emergency, the Supervisors are not going to give them fatigue time when the rest of the employees are continuing to work. The Supervisors have the latitude to give someone time off if a situation comes up. Mr. Locke replied this wasn't a case where the employee had a family emergency. He stated there are two (2) contract Articles that specifically address this. Mr. Locke staled the contract says the employee will be released and shall suffer no loss of straight time that he would normally receive. Mr. Taligian responded that the release was at the employee's request. He inquired how this was fair to the other employees who continued working. Ms. Mahoney stated the contract language doesn't say who determines the release time or fatigue time used. She inquired if that was a Management determination. Mr. Wilson stated there is no employee self -declaration situation, rather it is a determination made by Management based on operational needs, the emergency at hand, what time the employee began work, and what type of work the employee is doing. Mr. Locke believed this was done out of spite. He reiterated that if the City declared a snow emergency, they would tell Mr. Trybus they are unable to release him. Mr. Taligian replied that a snow emergency was declared. Mr. Locke countered that Mr. Trybus was not needed because they allowed him to use a vacation day. Mr. Tatigian stated that Mr. Trybus himself said he could not go on. Mr. Locke didn't believe there was anything on record stating Mr. Locke could not go on. Ms. Mahoney stated Mr. Trybus self -declared that he was tired. Mr. Locke responded there is a difference between someone saying they were tired and a refusal to work. Ms. Mahoney stated Mr. Trybus apparently told his Supervisor he could not perform his duties and she inquired if Mr. Trybus had stayed at work would he have been released in the afternoon with rest of the crew. Mr. Wilson replied that the rest of the crew worked for over twelve (12) hours and were released at 2:00 p.m. Mr. Campau referenced the contract language that discusses if/when an employee is released. Mr. Wilson stated they can't have employees self -declaring their own release from work. Mr. Biga explained that in the absence of explicit contract language, the common interpretation goes to past practice. Past practice dictates that Management makes the decision as to whether an employee is to be released and granted fatigue time with no deduction from their bank. If someone wants to take time off, and Management has not released them, then it is up to the employee to use their own paid leave time. It is Management's decision as to when to give release time or when not to give it. In this case, there was not a decision on Management's part to release Mr. Trybus; he chose on his own to leave work. In that case it is charged to his personal time. Every other instance indicated it is Management's decision to determine if fatigue time is warranted. Mr. Locke stated that in his ten (10) years in the Water Department, individual use of vacation has never been used in place of fatigue time; it has been used in conjunction with fatigue time. Page] 12]1" Regular Meeting Apri121,2010 Mr. Wilson said that during snow emergencies it is very common for someone to come in at 11:00 p.m. and work until 11:00 a.m. then they have four (4) more hours to work to complete their work day, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and it is very common for employees to use leave time during those four (4) hour periods. Mr. Tatigian staled that Mr. Trybus's leaving work puts a bigger work load on the remaining employees and in general, if one employee is given a break the other employees have to carry the load. Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, stated usually when you are called in to do a salt route, you work a maximum of four (4) hours and you go home. Then there is release time and you come back when it's your regular work day. That night Management wanted the salt to be put down lightly, even though in his nearly 32 years with the City, salt is usually spread medium to heavy when there is that kind of snow coming so it melts the snow when the traffic hits the road. Employees were told to go back and plow the curbs. Later Management changed their minds again and had them re -salt the roads. He felt this was a waste to the taxpayer because they could have a heavier spread of salt and let the morning traffic take care of it. So instead of him being at work for a few hours, which he thought was going to occur, Management kept changing the plan and he stayed there until 8:00 a.m. and he was tired and needed to go home and get some sleep. Mr. Wilson said there were changing conditions because it kept snowing. Ms. Mahoney said that Mr. Trybus just said to them that when he accepted the call in, he could have told them he only had an hour and a half of sleep and he could not assist. She just wanted to clarify the reason that Mr. Trybus answered the phone was he thought he would get about four (4) hours and then he would get paid release time, for which he would be home with pay, and then he would come back in for his normal shift. What actually happened was, as the Management decision to treat the snowstorm changed, that four (4) hours became six (6) hours or more, and that is when Mr. Trybus determined he needed more rest. Mr. Trybus agreed with her summation. Chairperson Mahoney stepped down to second the following motion: Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Ms. Mahoney and adopted, it was 10-322 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-10, dated April 16, 2010, from Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, regarding his request to be released from work for fatigue time, and having discussion with Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service; Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II; Steve Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192; and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance. AYES: Tatigian and Mahoney NAYS: Campau Mr. Biga stated that AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-12, dated April 16, 2010, from Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator II, regarding reporting for work during a snow emergency on February 23, 2010, had been withdrawn by the Union. Mr. Wilson informed the Page 1271" Regular Meeting Apnl21,2010 Commission that this was withdrawn yesterday, April 20, 2010, and that this grievance was placed on the Agenda based on a bad premise and presumably on the say-so of an employee. He explained to the Commission that time was expended processing this grievance at Step 1 and Step 2 and the Commission's time was wasted, when a minimal amount of time investigating the grievance would have avoided all of this. He hoped that for future grievances something was learned in this regard and not taking at face value what an employee says happened, but rather, the Union conduct a minimal amount of research before processing a grievance. Ms. Mahoney stated she hoped that Management and the Union could work together and communicate what needs to be available in order to make a determination if a grievable circumstance occurred or not. Charles Locke, presented AFSCME Union Local 192, Grievance #10-14, dated April 16, 2010, from several employees in the Roads Division, concerning the assignment of equipment. Mr. Locke explained that there was a truck in the Water Department that was vacated when Gordon Hollaway retired. He referenced Section 2.E., of the Union contract, which stales, "The City reserves the right to reclassify existing positions based on the assigned duties and responsibilities or make changes in assigned duties and responsibilities, as long as this is not in conflict with this Agreement" He also referenced Section 48, Equipment Assignment, when there is a vacant vehicle, it needs to be filled. The Union believes that Management's right to do whatever they want is in conflict with the Agreement. Mr. Campau indicated it is a Management decision when a piece of equipment becomes available. Mr. Locke didn't quite understand why the truck was not available, when it is a Water Department truck, which is completely unaffected, given the current budget situation. He added it was a self -funding Department. Mr. Locke agreed it was Management's choice. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10-323 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-14, dated April 16, 2010, from several employees in the Roads Division, conceming the assignment of equipment, and having discussion with Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was RESOLVED, That the meeting be adjourned at 6:25 p.m. Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III Ronald C. Campau, Chairperson Charlotte S. Mahoney, Commissioner Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner