Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1275th CSC Meeting (August)1275' REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION The 1275'^ Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Thursday, August 19, 2010. The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. Members Present: Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian Ronald E. Campau Also Present: Lori Miller, Secretary I Debra Seeman, Executive Board Member, Dominic Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 AFSCME Union Local 192 Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director Steve Schoonover, Vice -President, Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III AFSCME Union Local 192 Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10-356 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1274th Regular Meeting held Wednesday, July 21, 2010, be approved as submitted. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 10357 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of August 2, 2010, from Herman Legg, Equipment Operator II, and approved for submission by Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public Service and Kevin Maillard, Director of Public Works, requesting an unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of a thirty (30) day unpaid medical leave of absence for Mr. Legg beginning July 28, 2010 through August 27, 2010, subject to Mr. Legg providing medical documentation from his physician. 10-358 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental Correspondence of August 9, 2010, from Robert Jennison, Firefighter/Assistant Driver, approved for submission by Shadd A. Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting additional family illness leave, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative approval of Mr. Jennison's request to use an additional three (3) twenty-four (24) hour duty days for the calendar year 2010 from his sick bank to be charged as family illness. No Commission action was needed with regard to agenda item 1.a.3., the request from Barbara Wesley, Custodian (RPT), for an unpaid medical leave of absence because the Civil Service Department received notification from the Department of Public Works that the employee was able to return to work before the unpaid leave was needed. Page 2 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 10359 RESOLVED, that having reviewed the letter of August 16, 2010 from Sandm Teeter, Computer Administrator II, as approved for submission by Daniel T. Putman, Director of Information Systems, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess of the maximum of thirty (30) days, based on a projected retirement date of August 16, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve this request; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee is advised that maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement is fifty-one (51), 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 will be increased by the number of bonus vacation days earned in the last three (3) years prior to retirement for not using more than five (5) sick leave days annually, up to a maximum of six (6) days; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that it is the employee's responsibility to manage his/her vacation time to avoid losing excess accrued time prior to retirement by scheduling sufficient time off prior to retirement, subject to the operating needs of the department. 10-360 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the passing points of seventy percent (70.0%), or fourteen (14) out of twenty (20) for Grammar; ten (10) out of fifteen (15) for Punctuation; twenty-one (21) out of thirty (30) for Vocabulary; fourteen (14) out of twenty (20) for Spelling; and thirty-five (35) out of fifty-one (51) for Basic Filing Skills sections of the IPMA- HR Clerical Series (CS1-A); and twenty (20) out of forty (40) or fifty percent (50.0%) on the Watson -Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal, for the written examination for Program Supervisor (930 o.c.). 10-361 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Fire Equipment Mechanic (929 p.). 10362 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Clerk -Typist II (Non- competitive), for Diane Geverink. The Commission received and fled the following: Status of Temporary Employees Report for July 2010. Non -Resident Report as of August 1, 2010. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of August 1, 2010. Affirmative Action Report for July 1, 2010. Page 3 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 Removal of names from active eligible list report for the month of July 2010. No changes. 10-363 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the expiring eligible lists for the month of September 2010 — Account Clerk III (921 o.c.), Firefighter (915 o.c.) and Water Operations Mechanic 1 (1293 p.), the Civil Service Commission does hereby affnn the administrative approval to extend the eligible list for Account Clerk 111 (921 o.c.) for six (6) months to March 20, 2011 and extends the eligible list for Firefighter (915 o.c.) for six (6) months to March 29, 2011. Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, staled that at the request of AFSCME Union Local 192, Grievance #10-18, dated July 2, 2010, from Mark Trybus, Equipment Operator 11, regarding moving the show mobile stage, was withdrawn. Dominic Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 was present at the meeting to discuss AFSCME Grievances #10-19, #10-21, #10-22 and #10-23. The Chairperson asked Mr. Romano if Grievances #10-19 and #10-21 could be handled together since they were related. Mr. Romano responded that he had no problem with that. Mr. Romano stated even though the qualifications and parts of examination and weights in the promotional examination for Account Clerk I in the Department of Public Works was approved at the July 21, 2010 Civil Service Commission meeting, the Union wanted to officially grieve the approved qualifications and parts of examination and weights on the Account Clerk I examination and stressed that no qualifications are being upheld for this position even though two key qualifications from the last announcement were missing. Specifically, the experience in accounting, bookkeeping or related clerical experience was not listed. The qualifications state now you just have to be a current employee of the Department of Public Works and the Union feels that there is not much value being given to this position. Mr. Romano explained that he was one of the individuals previously tested and he did get the position. Mr. Romano referenced the new posting for Account Clerk I in the Fire Department and stated he didn't understand why a lateral posting didn't specify someone had to be a current employee of a certain Department for that, but for a promotional examination announcement, it became Departmental specific. Ms. Mahoney asked if the 192 Union was grieving the action of the Civil Service Commission to deal individually with qualifications and also asked if Mr. Romano understood that the Commission has the right to affirm, deny or modify postings for any open -competitive or promotional examination by Civil Service Rules and Regulations. Mr. Romano stated the qualifications were needed the last time but now all of a sudden are no longer needed and this is a process of trying to have history on this action that the Union shows opposition to the decision. Mr. Campau inquired if Mr. Romano was saying he would like to see the same qualifications for an open -competitive for a promotional examination. Mr. Romano replied yes. Page 4 1475th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 Mr. Tatigian stated that it was unusual for the Union to want an open -competitive examination rather than a promotional examination. Mr. Campau said Mr. Romano was comparing qualifications for an open -competitive examination to a promotional examination. Mr. Tatigian asked if it was the Union's position that in the future, no one will be promoted in the City of Livonia, as represented by the 192 Union, unless it's an open -competitive examination. Mr. Romano responded no, but he thought there should be some kind of testing that reflects some kind of capability. Mr. Campau stated there are Parts of Examination and Weights that include 40% Written Test and 40% Interview that would evaluate the individual's qualifications. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Mr. Romano was aware that some employees are promoted because they do good work, they have been with the City for a while and their supervisor feels that they are entitled to a promotion. He further inquired if Mr. Romano wanted to make this an open -competitive examination and negate the opportunity for promotion. Mr. Romano stated he was trying to protect City employees that would be qualified to test for this position that aren't being allowed to test. Ms. Mahoney explained that in the case of a promotional examination, the experience, depth and need is determined by the Department and is considered by the Commission to be adequate, not adequate or needing to be modified in the process. Ms. Mahoney's concern is that Mr. Romano wanted all examinations to be the same and not considered on an individual basis. Mr. Romano stated in matters of qualification, they see first if anybody who has status in the classification wants to laterally move to a vacant position. He indicated he is an Account Clerk I. He was tested and has worked as an Account Clerk I for almost 2-% years. Mr. Romano was concerned about the employees in the rest of the City. He believes there are other employees that could take that promotional examination that would also be able to participate in that examination and inquired why they were not able to lake that examination. Ms. Mahoney explained that the Department determined that in addition to passing the examination, they wanted some specific experience from within the Department. Mr. Romano indicated that Departmental specifications do not seem to matter when it becomes a lateral issue, but when it is a promotional examination, Departmental specifications do become important. Mr. Biga suggested that everyone read the 192 contract to see how to fill a vacancy, there is a certain sequence that Management goes through. The first sequence, which was negotiated, is that employees are permitted a lateral transfer if they hold the same classification. That is set forth in the Labor Agreement. That is a modification of what the Commission's role and responsibility is. Absent any specific contract provision to the contrary, the Commission retains the right to determine qualifications and parts of examination and weights. In the case of filling a position within a Department, after the transfer opportunity is given to members with status in the classification in 192, then there may be a promotion from within the Department, to look and see if there are qualified individuals within the Department that can be promoted. If no one within the Department wants the promotional opportunity, then it is up to the Department to request a citywide promotional examination or an open -competitive examination to fill the position. When the City has conducted citywide promotional examinations, anyone meeting the similar qualifications to an open -competitive examination gets priority over going outside. The Labor contract also has a provision that if Management opts for an open -competitive examination, Page 5 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 and someone from within the City meets the qualifications, lakes the examination and scores in the top three (3) candidates, then it becomes a promotional opportunity, which gives them other benefits. These modifications have been negotiated over time to provide employees with opportunities to move around within the City. Anything outside of what's been modified by contract provision, remains under the purview of the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Biga did not see any violation of the AFSCME Union Local 192 contract. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10-364 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievances #10-19, dated July 26, 2010 and #10-21, dated August 4, 2010, regarding the Qualifications and Description of Work for the Account Clerk I promotional announcement at DPW, and having discussion with Dominic Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192 and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievances #10-19 and #10-21. Dominic Romano presented AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-22, dated August 4, 2010, regarding the promotional examination for Clerk -Typist II at the Police Department, and explained that there is a clear track on Clerk -Typist I and Clerk -Typist 11. Mr. Campau asked that when the Union cites an Article in the contract, they include that language in the grievance packet. Mr. Romano indicated Article 18 referred to Recall Procedure and the Union wanted to know if the Civil Service Department had contacted the person on the recall list. Mr. Carl suggested the Union contact the Civil Service Department and ask what the situation is. Ms. Mahoney wanted to know what Article 18 referred to. Mr. Romano explained that is the Recall Procedure and that was supposed to be amended from the grievance. The Union had intended to ask if a person on a recall list who has been laid off was contacted in regards to this posting because they are a Clerk -Typist and they would probably qualify for this position, but it seems the Civil Service Commission, the last time, made a decision that goes against the contract. Mr. Romano read Article 20.G, which states, "Employees in the classification of Clerk -Typist I who have at least two years seniority in that classification and successfully complete a typing performance test and receive acceptable Departmental Ratings shall be promoted to the classification of Clerk - Typist 11." Mr. Romano explained that a Clerk 11 in the Police Department was being "fast tracked" into a different classification just so they could qualify for that and the Union would like the contract to be upheld. Mr. Biga stated Mr. Romano was present at the last meeting and it was explained then what the Department was attempting to do. There is no vacancy. The employee in the Police Department who is a Clerk 11 is the only Clerk 11 and what the Department was doing was something consistent to what has been done previously for a Clerk 11 to get promoted to the Clerk -Typist 11 level. The Department is giving them an opportunity to take the test. If the employee passes the lest then they will have all Clerk - Typists in their Department. Ms. Mahoney stated that Article 18 doesn't apply and this grievance, as it was written, is not reflective of what they are discussing. Mr. Biga stated the incumbent has more seniority than Page 6 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 the laid off person. Mr. Romano felt this still doesn't follow the guidelines of the contract. Mr. Biga respectfully disagreed with Mr. Romano's statement and stated the language in Article 20.G. was not the only route to be promoted to a Clerk -Typist 11. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 10365 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-22, dated August 4, 2010, regarding the promotional examination for Clerk -Typist II at the Police Department, and having discussion with Dominic Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby deny AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-22. Ms. Mahoney stated she was in possession of AFSCME Union Local 192 #10-23, dated August 4, 2010, regarding the Job Description for Secretary I, and changing the lens "directs" to the term "manages' was accepted by Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union Local 192, as a resolution to this grievance. She also understood based on an email that Mr. Biga received, that Mr. Romano is not in agreement with the President of the Union. Ms. Mahoney suggested that Mr. Romano contact the Union President first. Mr. Romano questioned why Mr. Biga contacted Mr. Locke first. Ms. Mahoney suggested Mr. Romano discuss this with Mr. Biga and then detennine if this needs to come back to the Civil Service Commission. Mr. Biga explained that this language is part of a class specification. Mr. Romano stated this was an item handed to the Secretary I which is an entry level position that states that the person "manages" a staff with differing duties and who are also in a higher classification. Mr. Tatigian inquired if the President of the Union was the person who speaks for the Union. Mr. Romano indicated he spoke to the Union President earlier wherein he asked if he could still discuss this matter with the Civil Service Commission and was told he could. Ms. Mahoney stated it would have been astute of Mr. Locke to send an email to Mr. Biga to clarify that. Steve Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192, staled when Mr. Locke spoke with Mr. Biga regarding this situation, Charlie had not yet spoken with Lori Miller, Secretary I, so there was some miscommunication on the Union's part. Since Mr. Romano and Mr. Locke spoke this morning, Mr. Locke does understand now that this grievance should be heard. The Union feels there is more than changing of one word to remedy this grievance. Mr. Locke unfortunately, does not have access to the City email and that could be one reason why he didn't contact Mr. Biga by email. Mr. Schoonover hoped the Commission could take him at his word when he spoke for the Union that it was their intention to have this grievance heard at the meeting tonight. Mr. Campau inquired what contract provision was violated. Mr. Romano stated it is normal practice for somebody in the highest qualification of a section or department to get the upgrade to actually direct, manage or supervise a group of people within their section. This is a position that is at the lowest level of a track, and is paid less than several of the positions Page 7 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 in that section and there is nothing in the description that mentions an upgrade that would put them in a position that would actually be paid more so they could direct, manage or supervise. Mr. Campau inquired again what contract provision was violated. Mr. Romano stated the Union was grieving the fact that it is practiced in other Departments across the City, particularly DPW, where there are measures to upgrade people that clearly define the pecking order of classifications. This is a grievance of a job description or duties that was handed to an employee that has no way of being compensated for such duties. Mr. Campau asked if the Secretary I was given a temporary promotion. Mr. Romano replied no. Mr. Campau asked if the Secretary I was given additional duties and Mr. Romano stated yes. Mr. Biga clarified that the job description says in the absence of the Clerk and the Assistant City Clerk, this person manages the seven (7) person office staff and handles bid openings. Mr. Biga stated he proposed to change the word "manages" to "directs' because the employee directs the other employees and they handle bid openings if the other two people are absent. Mr. Biga advised this has been in the class specification for several years and he explained to Mr. Locke that he would not negotiate job descriptions, but he would negotiate or discuss job content and he agreed that the word "manages' is inappropriate in this classification specification. Mr. Biga said Mr. Locke indicated that the word "directs" is appropriate and that is what he does in his job in DPW and is done elsewhere in the City. Ms. Mahoney stated this only becomes an issue if person "A" and "B" are out of the office and there is need for Management or direction. At the point at which the person had to do this, she thought the argument was if they would be compensated at the level they worked for the time they were in that position. Mr. Romano stated that employees in the 192 Union do not manage, supervise or direct. Usually the highest paid person within the section gets an upgrade to Foreman or something that gives them power to direct or supervise or manage for that temporary time. This does not exist in the clerical series; there is no Foreman. Lori Miller, Secretary 1, introduced herself and explained this has been an ongoing situation and in the absence of person "A" and "B" ideally it would sound ok to assign them tasks on a temporary basis if it were something of a miniscule nature, but this has been going on for months. She stated she logs the hours that she performs these duties. Mr. Campau asked Ms. Miller how often this occurred and she replied that she has logged over two (2) months' time so far this year and she is not compensated at a higher classification that reflects what she is being asked to do. Ms. Mahoney asked why a Secretary I is third in line to begin with. Ms. Miller stated there are other people in her department that classification -wise, outrank her and that is the problem. It is hard to supervise your co-workers if they are in a higher classification. In the past this was a Secretary III classification and it has been downgraded over the years, so at the time the job specification was written, a Secretary III would outrank the other co-workers. Mr. Tatigian stated the Commission was unable to award Ms. Miller compensation, only the City Council can do that. He stated usually the Department Head appeals to the City Council for a promotion to a higher classification. Ms. Miller understood that. Page 8 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 Ms. Mahoney inquired if it would be acceptable to the Union if the Commission suggested strongly to the City Clerk that the job description for Secretary I be re -written to remove the reference that when the City Clerk and Assistant City Clerk are gone, the Secretary I is in charge, and then internally they need to figure out who is going to be in charge and redo that job description. Mr. Tatigian requested more clarification. He asked if the City Clerk and the Assistant City Clerk are both gone for months at a time. The Chairperson clarified that it is an hour here or there, and this was accumulation of time. Mr. Tatigian inquired if the Secretary I was really performing managerial duties just for an hour or two. Ms. Miller advised she was running the Department in their absence. Mr. Campau asked if this went on for more than an hour or two a day and Ms. Miller stated yes, it goes on for days and weeks at a time. One particular time one person was on vacation and one was at a conference and for a while the City was without a City Clerk so there was a lag there. Mr. Tatigian asked if Ms. Miller has talked to the City Clerk and she stated that she had. She indicated this began when Ms. Grimsby assumed office. Ms. Mahoney stated it appeared this job description does not ft the role of the Secretary 1. Mr. Tatigian inquired if Ms. Marecki knew about this and Mr. Biga responded that she inherited this. Mr. Campau inquired why there wasn't a temporary upgrade. Mr. Tatigian wanted to know why the City Clerk was not present to explain this to the Commissioners. Mr. Biga explained that the decision to upgrade someone into a higher level position rests with Management. If Management chooses, they can opt to not upgrade an employee and just take the position that this person is going to direct the work of the subordinate Department staff. If there is a major issue that needs to be resolved, a phone call can be placed. Mr. Tatigian asked how long the language of the class specification has been on the books and Mr. Biga replied since 2008. Mr. Tatigian inquired when Ms. Miller was hired. Ms. Miller stated she was hired in January 3, 2007 and she was just given the job description and she never saw this until two (2) weeks ago. Mr. Tatigian stated if the job description was there all this time, that is what she had to go by. Mr. Romano disagreed and staled typically when there are changes or postings it is usually run by the Union and he didn't think that somebody in the position of President would have approved it as it is. Mr. Tatigian stated he didn't think Mr. Romano knew what happened in 2007 because he was a new employee at that time. Ms. Mahoney stated she didn't see anywhere in the grievance a request to have any past time spent in an upgrade and provide money for that. Ms. Mahoney clarified there is a job description that doesn't make sense and it is unfair to the Secretary I to do that. She requested, if the Union agreed, to take the grievance off the table and sit down with Ms. Marecki and discuss the job description to see if it needed to be rewritten. Mr. Tatigian agreed with the Chairperson and asked Ms. Miller if she was asking for additional compensation. She replied she wasn't. Mr. Schoonover wanted to clarify with Mr. Biga that they are changing job duties not job description of Secretary I in the City Clerk's office. Mr. Biga explained that the description describes what the duties are and this is saying the responsibility has been there, the issue that is being questioned now is whether a Secretary I or some other classification within the City Clerk's office would have this function as being more appropriate. Page 9 1275th Regular Meeting August 19, 2010 Mr. Biga added that if there is discussion regarding directing the work of the subordinate Department personnel, that is a practice that has been done throughout the City in a variety of ways depending on the structure within a Department and the classifications within that particular Department. Those classifications change from time to time and the functions are still there, so they end up moving from one classification to another. Mr. Tatigian asked Ms. Miller if she found the additional duties a burden, to which she replied no. She stated some of the employees have a hard time taking directives from her because they are in a higher classification. Mr. Schoonover indicated that the Union was fine with tabling this item and they would put an official request in for a Labor -Management meeting with Mr. Biga and Ms. Marecki. Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was 10-366 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192 Grievance #10-23, dated August 4, 2010, from the 192 Clerical Staff, regarding a provision of the job description for Secretary I in the City Clerk's Office, and having discussion with Dominic Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; Steve Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME Union Local 192; Lori Miller, Secretary I; and Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, the Civil Service Commission does hereby table this grievance and refers this matter to the Human Resources Director and the Union for a Labor -Management meeting. Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was 10367 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Program Supervisor (1313 p.). 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 Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner Ronald C. Campau, Commissioner