HomeMy WebLinkAbout1277th CSC Meeting (October)1277' REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The 1277'^ Regular Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Wednesday,
October 20, 2010. The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m.
Members Present:
Also Present:
James Hamel, Building Inspector
Charles Locke, President, AFSCME Union
Local 192
Ruth Love, Police Department Clerical
Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192
Wanda Roberts, Clerk -Typist I
Dominic Romano, Chief Clerical Steward,
AFSCME Union Local 192
Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson
Harry C. Tatigian
Ronald E. Campau
Steve Schoonover, Vice -President, AFSCME
Union Local 192
Debra Seeman, Executive Board, AFSCME
Union Local 192
DuWayne Stmtman, Inspection Department
Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192
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
10-379 RESOLVED, That the minutes of the 1276th Regular Meeting held
Wednesday, September 15, 2010, be approved as submitted.
Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
10-380 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental
Correspondence of September 23, 2010 from Timothy Eskin, Firefighter, as
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. Eskin'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.
10381 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Departmental
Correspondence of September 17, 2010 from Jana Falsetta, Police Dispatcher,
as approved for submission by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting a
sixty (60) day unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission
does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence, not to exceed sixty
(60) days, far the period November 2, 2010 through December 31, 2010, with the
understanding that Ms. Falsetta is responsible during her unpaid medical leave of
absence to pay the copayment for her medical insurance;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should Ms. Falsetta not return to work
for at least thirty (30) calendar days, after the approved sixty (60) day unpaid
medical leave of absence, she will be responsible to reimburse the City of Livonia
Page 2 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
for any costs for benefits paid for Ms. Falsetta during her time, off in accordance
with Section 25.6 (c), Insurance Premium Payments, of the Civil Service
Commission Rules and Regulations and Final FMLA Regulations (29 C.F.R.),
unless circumstances for not returning to work are beyond Ms. Falsetta's control.
10-382 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 28,
2010 from Louis Rivas, Water Meter Repairer II, as approved for submission by
Kevin Maillard, Director of Public Works, requesting a ninety (90) day unpaid
medical leave of absence, the Civil Service Commission does hereby approve an
unpaid medical leave of absence, not to exceed ninety (90) days, for the period
September 24, 2010 through December 22, 2010, with the understanding that
should Mr. Rivas not return to work by November 22, 2010, it is required that Mr.
Rivas provide additional medical certification from his personal physician
continuing his disability;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should Mr. Rivas not return to work for
at least thirty (30) calendar days, after the approved ninety (90) day unpaid
medical leave of absence, he will be responsible to reimburse the City of Livonia
for any costs for benefits paid for Mr. Rivas during his time, off in accordance
with Section 25.6 (c) Insurance Premium Payments, of the Civil Service
Commission Rules and Regulations and Final FMLA Regulations (29 C.F.R.),
unless circumstances for not returning to work are beyond Mr. Rivas' control.
10-383 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 7, 2010
from Dan West, Service Representative, as approved for submission by Kevin
Maillard, Director of Public Works and Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public
Service, requesting a ninety (90) day unpaid medical leave of absence, the Civil
Service Commission does hereby approve an unpaid medical leave of absence,
not to exceed ninety (90) days, for the period October 1, 2010 through December
29, 2010, with the understanding that Mr. West is responsible during his unpaid
medical leave of absence to pay the copayment for his medical insurance;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that should Mr. West not return to work for
at least thirty (30) calendar days, after the approved ninety (90) day unpaid
medical leave of absence, he will be responsible to reimburse the City of Livonia
for any costs for benefits paid for Mr. West during his time off, in accordance with
Section 25.6 (c), Insurance Premium Payments, of the Civil Service Commission
Rules and Regulations and Final FMLA Regulations (29 C.F.R.), unless
circumstances for not returning to work are beyond Mr. West's control.
10-384 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 12, 2010,
from James McCracken, Custodian, as approved for submission by Kevin
Maillard, Director of Public Works and Brian Wilson, Superintendent of Public
Service, requesting additional family illness leave, the Civil Service Commission
does hereby affirm the administrative approval of Mr. McCracken's request to
use an additional six (6) eight (8) hour days for the calendar year 2010 from his
sick bank to be charged as family illness.
Page 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
10385 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 15,
2010, from Donald Borieo, Police Sergeant, as approved for submission by
Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess
of the maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of
September 15, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the
administrative approval of this request;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the
maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement as cited in the Livonia
Lieutenants and Sergeants Association Contract, Article 16, VACATION,
Paragraph E, and 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 employee has been advised 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 nine (9) days;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been notified 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.
10386 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 17,
2010, from James Siledet, Senior Police Sergeant, as approved for submission
by Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in
excess of the maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement
date of September 17, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm
the administrative approval of this request;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the
maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement as cited in the Livonia
Lieutenants and Sergeants Association Contract, Article 16, VACATION,
Paragraph E, and 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 employee has been advised 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 nine (9) days;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been notified 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.
10387 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of September 13,
2010, from Gregory Yon, Senior Police Sergeant, as approved for submission by
Page 4 1477th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
Robert Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess
of the maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of
September 13, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the
administrative approval of this request;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the
maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement as cited in the Livonia
Lieutenants and Sergeants Association Contract, Article 16, VACATION,
Paragraph E, and 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 employee has been advised 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 nine (9) days;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been notified 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.
10-388 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 1, 2010,
from Robert Rybinski, Fire Captain, as approved for submission by Shadd A.
Whitehead, Fire Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess of the
maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of October
1, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative
approval of this request;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the
maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement as cited in the Livonia
Firefighters Union, Article 15, VACATIONS, paragraph G.i., and 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 employee has been advised 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
fifty-six (56) sick leave hours annually, up to a maximum of three (3) days;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been notified it is the
employee's responsibility to manage his/her vacation time to avoid losing excess
accrued time prior to refirement by scheduling sufficient time off prior to
retirement, subject to the operating needs of the department.
10389 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 11, 2010,
from Dan Danaher, Police Sergeant, as approved for submission by Robert
Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess of the
maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of October
Page 5 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
11, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative
approval of this request;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the
maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement as cited in the Livonia
Lieutenants and Sergeants Association Contract, Article 16, VACATION,
Paragraph E, and 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 employee has been advised 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 nine (9) days;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been notified 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.
10390 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 11, 2010,
from John Kalil, Senior Police Officer, as approved for submission by Robert
Stevenson, Police Chief, requesting to carry over vacation days in excess of the
maximum allowed by contract, based on a projected retirement date of October
11, 2013, the Civil Service Commission does hereby affirm the administrative
approval of this request;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been advised of the
maximum number of days to be paid off at retirement as cited in the Livonia
Police Officers Association Contract, Article 22.7, Vacation Accrual, and 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 employee has been advised 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 nine (9) days;
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the employee has been notified 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.
10-391 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of September
23, 2010, from Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst II, to Robert F. Biga,
Human Resources Director, regarding the passing point for the written
examination for Account Clerk I (1312 p.), the Civil Service Commission does
hereby affirm the administrative approval of the passing point of 70% or a score
Page 6 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
of 70 out of a maximum score of 100 for the written examination for Account
Clerk 1 (1312 p.).
10392 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of September
28, 2010, from Derrick L. Washington, Personnel Analyst 11, to Robert F. Biga,
Human Resources Director, regarding the passing point for the written
examination for Account Clerk 1 (1314 p.), the Civil Service Commission does
hereby affirm the administrative approval of the passing point of 70% or a score
of 70 out of a maximum score of 100 for the written examination for Account
Clerk 1 (1314 p.).
10393 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby
confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Account Clerk 1
(1312 p.).
10394 RESOLVED, That the Civil Service Commission does hereby
confirm the administrative approval of the eligible list for Account Clerk I
(1314 p.).
The Commission received and fled the following:
a. Status of Temporary Employees Report for September 2010.
b. Non -Resident Report as of October 1, 2010.
C. Current Open -Competitive and Promotional Eligible Lists as of
October 1, 2010.
d. Affirmative Action Report for September 2010.
e. Removal of names from active eligible list report for the month of
September 2010. No changes.
f. Free Press communication regarding Metro Detroit officials evaluating
staff policies on online postings.
g. Meeting dates for the Livonia Employees Retirement System Board of
Trustees for 2011.
h. Letter of October 8, 2010 from the Law Department, regarding Section
457 Deferred Compensation Plans and the Ability of the City Council to
Close/Terminale Plans.
I. Council Resolution from the meeting of October 6, 2010, with minutes
to be approved October 20, 2010:
#338-10, accepting the Arbitration Opinion and Award for MERC Case
No. D09 B-0220, for the Livonia Lieutenants and Sergeants Association
(LLSA).
10395 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the expiring eligible lists for
the month November 2010 — Clerk -Typist 1 (889 o.c.), Clerk II (1303 p.),
Equipment Operator II (1289 p.), Sewer Maintenance Worker 1 (1301 p.) and
Sewer Maintenance Worker II (1302 p.), the Civil Service Commission does
hereby affirm the administrative approval of the extension of the Clerk II
(1303 p.) eligible list for six (6) months to May 12, 2011 and the extension of
Page 7 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
the Equipment Operator II (1289 p.) eligible list for six (6) months to May 7,
2011.
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, stated he had a telephone call that he wasn't able
to return yet regarding Receive and File item h. He explained that about a year ago, the City
Council adopted a resolution requesting the Law Department to answer a question about
whether or not a 457 plan could be cancelled. He thought the terms were a problem. He
further explained that the City has one (1) 457 plan, but it has three (3) providers. What the
letter refers to is can you cancel the contract between the City and a provider? The answer
is yes, that can be done, and that is what the letter concerns. In the discussion with the City
Council, a question came up about if the City did cancel, what happens. At least two (2) of
the vendors have a provision that the monies that are invested stay unless the employee
wants to move the money. This goes back over 20 years ago. In the state of California, a
governmental unit terminated some 457 vendors. The employees didn't want their money
moved. In this case, the agency did have the authority to move the money, because the
money is technically not the employee's money, it's the local government's money for IRS
purposes; and is in the deferred compensation program. Those contracts say that the
monies stay unless the employee wants to move it. Mr. Tatigian inquired why this was an
issue. Mr. Biga replied that there is a suspicion that there is a vendor that wants to become
a 457 provider for the City. The City has three (3) vendors. This is more than most
communities. The Finance Director has taken a position that the City has enough options
and there is no need to add another one. One of the Councilmembers wanted more
information. Most of our neighboring communities have one (1) vendor. Mr. Biga provided
Council that information on a survey. Mr. Biga advised that we currently have Nationwide,
International City Managers Association (ICMA) and Community Choice Credit Union
(Hartford). Mr. Biga stated he would call the employee who had the question and explain this
to him after the meeting.
Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
10-396 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 5, 2010
from Jack E. Kirksey, Mayor, and Dave Varga, Director of Administrative
Services, requesting a promotional examination for Program Supervisor, and
proposed qualifications and parts of examination and weights, the Civil Service
Commission does hereby approve the following qualifications and parts of
examination and weights:
QUALIFICATIONS
This examination is open only to employees of the City of Livonia who, by the closing date of
this announcement, who have status as a Secretary II and have been employed in the Office of
the Mayor for a minimum of five (5) years.
PARTS OF EXAMINATION AND WEIGHTS
Departmental Rating — 100%
Page 8
1277th Regular Meeting
October 20, 2010
Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
10-397 RESOLVED,
That the Civil Service Commission
does hereby
approve the Civil Service Commission meeting schedule for
2011, as follows:
DAY
DATE
TIME
WEDNESDAY
JANUARY 19, 2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
FEBRUARY 16, 2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
MARCH 16,2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
APRIL 20, 2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
MAY 18, 2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
JUNE 15, 2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
JULY 20, 2011
5:30 P.M.
THURSDAY
AUGUST 18, 2011
6:00 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
OCTOBER 19,2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
NOVEMBER 16,2011
5:30 P.M.
WEDNESDAY
DECEMBER 7,2011
5:30 P.M.
The Commissioners advised Union officials that there would only be two (2) Commissioners
present for the February 16, 2011 Civil Service Commission meeting.
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, advised that the Mayor contacted him about
continuing the Unpaid Time Off program. He explained that what happens under this
program is if employees take up to thirteen (13) days unpaid time, it will not adversely impact
their accrued vacations and sick leave for the subsequent year. This is to continue the
program for another year if approved by the Commission.
Mr. Biga stated there were approximately forty (40) employees that volunteered for this
program; mostly non-union employees, Department Heads and non -police employees, but
there were a few employees from 192 and 1917. No represented police or fire employees
participated.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was
Page 9 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
10-398 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the memorandum of October
12, 2010 from Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director, regarding the
continuation of voluntary unpaid time off, the Civil Service Commission does
hereby approve the continuation of the unpaid time off program for the period
December 1, 2010 through November 30, 2011.
Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, recalled last year, there were two (2) employees in
the Law Department who adjusted their work schedule to keep one (1) employee who was
going to be laid off. The conditions have not changed and Mr. Biga contacted them to see if
they were willing to do the same thing for next year. They have indicated they would. They
have prepared memoranda of understanding for both of those employees.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was
10-399 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the letter of October 18, 2010,
from the Law Department, requesting an extension of the Hours/Wage
Adjustment agreement for two employees, the Civil Service Commission does
hereby approve the extension of adjusted hours for Ms. Smyser and Ms. Via for
the period of December 1, 2010 through November 30, 2011, as outlined in the
Hours/Wage Adjustment agreements.
Chairperson Mahoney complimented the two (2) employees, Ms. Via and Ms. Smyser, who
generously donated their hours for another employee.
Dominick Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Local Union 192, presented AFSCME
Union Local 192 Grievance #10-28, dated September 21, 2010, from Wanda Roberts, Clerk -
Typist I, regarding the promotional examination for Clerk -Typist II and explained that Ms.
Roberts took the performance test several times over the past six (6) months. She was told
recently she passed the test. The Departmental Rating was sent to her supervisors who
filled out the rating, signed it, and told her that she got the promotion. Two weeks went by
and then she was told she did not pass the test. So the Union representative asked Mr.
Washington about this. It seemed to them that there was an intradepartmental debate rather
than something of process. They were told the scoring process had been in place for 3-5
years. Mr. Romano wondered if Ms. Roberts look the test and how many other people took
the test over the past 3 years, if it was really a process matter. Mr. Romano stated that both
Mr. Biga and Mr. Washington approved this promotion in order for the rating to go to Ms.
Roberts' supervisor. After several requests to see what the actual scoring procedure is in
written form, they never received that. The Union is inquiring why she did not receive this
promotion and on what grounds was she denied the promotion after it was actually
approved.
Mr. Biga stated Mr. Romano was incorrect. He never said Ms. Roberts passed the
performance test. He has always maintained that the test has two (2) components to it.
One component is speed and the second component is accuracy. The test we use requires
a specific proficiency. There is a chart that the Civil Service Department has been using for
many years that requires a ten-minute sample, not a five-minute sample. Unfortunately the
Page 10 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
Civil Service Department has been using a five-minute sample. What has been done is
doubling the number of errors that occur in a five-minute sample and then using the chart to
arrive at a converted score. That converted score is an avenue for comparing two
candidates who have typing proficiencies that vary. There is a minimum words per minute
and in the case of a Clerk -Typist II, that is 50 words per minute with an adjusted speed plus
a proficiency based upon the number of errors. The chart takes the number of errors and
typing speed on a ten-minute test and the converts these to a score that is used as the test
score. The standard passing score for the City by Civil Service Rules is 70. In order to
achieve that passing score, you have to have a proficiency as well as a speed. In Ms.
Roberts' case, she has the speed but her proficiency is not high enough; therefore, she does
not pass. It is true she passes half of the test, but not all of the test. An error was made
indicating she passed the test and we are correcting that error. This test has been given
and graded in the same manner since he has been here and it is not a change. There are
some alternatives that could occur. We could go back to a ten-minute test instead of using a
five-minute test, which would resolve the issue and we may end up doing that in the future.
Or the standard could be changed and just go to a speed standard. But at this time we are
not changing anything. We are using procedures that have been place and any
characterization to the contrary is in error.
Ms. Mahoney stated that the fact of the matter is that the candidate was in appropriately
notified that she passed. Mr. Biga stated yes. Mr. Tatigian inquired how many tests have
been given in this manner and Mr. Biga replied that in six other examinations that have had
multiple candidates. Ms. Mahoney asked whether in each of those exams the scores were
doubled. Mr. Biga confined that to be the case. Mr. Tatigian then asked how many times
Ms. Roberts had taken this performance test. Mr. Washington indicated she has taken the
test five times.
Mr. Tatigian stated he would like to give Ms. Roberts a break but it was not the
Commission's job to change the standards for everyone in the City which have been
established for that position. In this case, he asked Ms. Roberts if she would object to taking
the test again and again until she does pass it. Ms. Roberts explained she was not trying to
change the standards, she was just saying that she was notified that she passed. Mr.
Tatigian reiterated that this was a mistake. Ms. Roberts indicated it took the Civil Service
Department two weeks to realize the error. She stated she called the Civil Service
Department and Mr. Washington told her she passed. Mr. Tatigian again said mistakes
happen.
Mr. Locke asked the Commission if they would afford her another opportunity in the
immediate future to retake the lest, given the fact that, according to the standards of this test
and for some reason she thought she did pass. Mr. Tatigian said he would do better than
that. He would give her the opportunity to continue to take the test until she passes.
Mr. Biga explained that the only standard the City has is when someone fails a promotional
examination, by Civil Service Commission Rules, there is a six-month waiting period. The
Commission could waive that waiting period if they chose.
Page 11 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
10-400 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #10-28, dated September 21, 2010, from Wanda Roberts, Clerk -
Typist I, regarding the promotional examination for Clerk -Typist II, and having
discussion with Dominick Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME Union Local
192; Robert Biga, Human Resources Director; Charles Locke, President,
AFSCME Union Local 192; and Wanda Roberts, Clerk -Typist I, the Civil Service
Commission does hereby approve allowing Ms. Roberts the opportunity to retake
the performance test for Clerk -Typist II, waiving the six-month waiting period,
until such time she passes the test due to an error in the process.
Mr. Romano commented that if this were a test to certify someone for a position out in the
work field and they had lined up a job because of that certification and then were called
several weeks later to be told that they didn't pass the test, and they lost that job opportunity,
he believed there might be further recourse against that testing procedure. It is up to Ms.
Roberts to do what she wants to do. Mr. Tatigian stated that Ms. Roberts could take it
further if she so chose. Mr. Romano just wanted this to be on the record.
Ms. Mahoney asked Mr. Romano to keep in mind that this was not the scenario that he just
put forward. This was a test that was administered since they have gone to the computer
vs. the typewriter, and unfortunately, an error occurred. The Civil Service Commission
cannot change the standards but they can waive the six-month waiting period for retesting
and we can allow her to take that test until such time that she passes it. Ms. Mahoney
added that the motion needed to reflect that this is being done because of the error that
occurred. Everyone who does not pass the performance test won't come back and ask to
retake the test.
James Hamel, Building Inspector, introduced himself and asked if anyone had an objection
to him tape recording the meeting. Mr. Biga said he did object to recording the meeting
since it was contrary to Civil Service Commission policy. Ms. Mahoney informed Mr. Hamel
he could have a copy of the minutes.
DuWayne Stratman, Inspection Department Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192, explained
that Mr. Hamel was hired by the City of Livonia and the VEBA contribution was never
deducted. He was sure it was a clerical error, but unfortunately the amount the City wants to
recover is in excess of $4,000.00. Mr. Stratman stated Mr. Hamel made a request that this
amount not be repaid by payroll deduction and they went through a process of trying to stop
the payroll deduction. Ms. Mahoney inquired how Mr. Hamel wanted to make the
repayment. Mr. Stratman indicated he thought there is some negotiation needed. This has
resulted in an overpayment because the City never took out the 2% VEBA contribution and
he believed that under the State of Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefit Act you can only go
back on payroll deductions six (6) months of the VEBA payments. He stated he was not a
lawyer but that was his interpretation of the Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefit Act.
James Hamel stated he was notified by a phone call from Mr. Biga informing him that after
three (3) years and nine (9) months, the amount of time that he has been employed with the
Page 12 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
City, that the 2% VEBA deduction that was supposed to come out of his paycheck wasn't
deducted. Over that period of time he thought it was being deducted. He showed the
Commission paychecks going back two (2) years and stated he didn't know where the
deduction was and he doesn't compare paychecks with people. He stated he has been very
outspoken about the purpose of VEBA and he was upset about it, thinking that it was being
taken out of his paycheck. Then he was informed by Mr. Biga two (2) days prior to a letter
he received informing him that starting his next paycheck, the regular 2% VEBA deduction
and an additional VEBA deduction of $41.92 would be made from his paycheck, through no
discussion. The Finance Department gave him three (3) options for repayment. They were
going to take out $42 a paycheck or he could offer up more, or just pay it in full. He stated
he was given four (4) days to respond to this. Mr. Hamel stated he replied to it and he
offered up what he thought was fair. Mr. Tatigian inquired what he offered as repayment.
Mr. Hamel replied $5.00 per paycheck in addition to the 2% deduction because the City has
never taken VEBA out of his paycheck. He was informed that effective September 17, 2010,
they were going to start taking out what they should, which equates to approximately $46.00.
On top of that they want to take out approximately $41.00. So not only did this create a 2%
deduction out of his paycheck, that by contract, he would now have a 4% decrease in his
paycheck by making both contributions; the current one and the extra payment. Mr. Biga
chose to go retro, which Mr. Hamel asked him three (3) times not to do, and he did not
authorize the City to take any payroll deductions, other than what is allowed by contract,
which is 2% or $46.00. When Mr. Hamel began this grievance, Mr. Stratman stood by him,
because he is the only representation he had. The Union told him regarding this issue when
he asked Dominick Romano, "per our brief discussion, October 4, 2010, at 9:30 a.m.
regarding Charlie Locke, and Local 192's decision not to file or pursue my grievance, please
forward me that decision in writing." Dominick wrote him back "Please refer to AFSCME
Council 25 for any issue you may have with representation" Mr. Hamel stated the Local
Union did not stand by him. He staled he had problems getting this grievance even before
the Commission. Mr. Hamel wanted to come before the Commission in a fairway to say he
just took a 4% pay cut for something that he had no control over, after three (3) years and
nine (9) months. Mr. Hamel stated he understood the responsibility of his bills, although he
did not agree with the VEBA. He stated he lives up to his bills.
Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Hamel what he didn't understand about the VEBA. Mr. Hamel
responded that was not the issue. Mr. Hamel replied he thought the City promised a
contract to pay the retirees when they retire and through time maybe the City went broke, or
maybe the City ran out of money, they now force the existing employees to contribute to the
retirees' program. Mr. Hamel staled he had to contribute to somebody else's retirement and
he would never benefit from it, but he wasn't the one who made the promise to that person if
they work here 20 years, they'll have "X" amount of dollars. Mr. Tatigian asked Mr. Hamel if
he planned on retiring. Mr. Hamel stated he didn't plan on it. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Hamel
if he knew at $5.00 a paycheck it would take approximately 33 years to pay off what was
owed. Mr. Campau asked Mr. Hamel if he was going to work another 33 years and Mr.
Hamel said no, however, they wanted 100% of the initial 2%, and his $5.00 repayment is at
least 15% of the number they wanted. He stated he knew that sounded low on the surface,
but he was just hit with close to $100 bill per month. Mr. Tatigian asked if Mr. Hamel
understood that the City was entitled to take all of that money from him. He also asked Mr.
Hamel if he knew what that meant under the law. Mr. Tatigian explained that under the law
of equity Mr. Hamel was unlawfully enriched; he got a benefit that none of the other
Page 13 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 201 D
employees that work in a similar classification received. Mr. Tatigian continued by saying a
mistake was made by the City and the Payroll Department should have been taking that
money from Mr. Hamel, but that doesn't mean he isn't obligated to make those payments.
The City has a perfect right under the Remedy of Self Help that they are paying Mr. Hamel a
paycheck right now, to try and remedy the situation by making the deduction. Mr. Tatigian
stated the representative, Mr. Stratman, made a very astute comment, saying this was
something that probably should be negotiated.
Mr. Stratman stated that under the Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act actually
requires a written consent from the employee for deductions from his wages; if they were not
negotiated by the Union. Mr. Tatigian stated these were negotiated. Mr. Stratman stated
the repayment was not negotiated by the Union. He continued by stating this was an
overpayment made to Mr. Hamel through a clerical error and that falls under the Michigan
Wages and Fringe Benefits Act. Mr. Tatigian stated he didn't think Mr. Hamel had a leg to
stand on and it is probably why their Union representatives didn't want to represent him. Mr.
Stratman stated the Union felt it wasn't a contractual issue. Mr. Stratman reiterated that Mr.
Hamel asked there be no payroll deduction. If they want to work out a plan how they are
going to do this and what is legal, but Mr. Stratman thought it was very clear that the
Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act says he must sign for that deduction to take place
in excess of what was negotiated by the Union. Mr. Campau inquired if Mr. Biga was aware
of that law. Mr. Biga responded yes.
Mr. Tatigian clarified that Mr. Hamel did not object to the $46.00 because he had no say
about that negotiated contractual issue, but Mr. Hamel was objecting to the reimbursement.
Ms. Mahoney called on an audience member who wished to speak. Mr. Romano stated that
earlier in this process they talked about thinking of some way to negotiate with the City and
when Mr. Hamel asked Mr. Romano questions, he felt that he was being represented by Mr.
Stratman.
Mr. Biga gave a brief overview of what happened. He explained that in a review that he was
doing in preparation for negotiations, he found that there were several employees in the City
who had not contributed to the VEBA when they should have. He contacted the Payroll
Department to find out what happened and talked to Mr. Slater. It was confirmed that two
employees, one being Mr. Hamel, who had never had a deduction made from his check and
another employee who had deductions stopped for some unknown reason, and then they
started up again. Mr. Slater indicated the typical method for recovery is to take the
deduction out over the length of time that the deduction should have been taken, rather than
try to impact someone all at once. Mr. Slater communicated via written correspondence to
Mr. Hamel and explained to him that there were three (3) options available; one was taking
the VEBA out for the three (3) years and nine (9) months, another option was to pay all at
once, or some other acceptable method of trying to get the recovery. Mr. Biga stated he
placed a courtesy call to Mr. Hamel and the other employee so that they would not catch Mr.
Slaters letter on the cold. Mr. Biga further stated that Mr. Hamel interrupted him and he
could never finish what he was attempting to say to him and that he was probably the rudest
individual he ever encountered on the telephone. He was disappointed in Mr. Hamel as a
representative of the City. Mr. Biga stated that he and Mr. Hamel had communicated by
email. Mr. Hamel interrupted him by stating that he and Mr. Biga had not had direct
communication. Mr. Biga continued by stating that he had numerous entails from Mr. Hamel
Page 14 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
along with his responses to those entails and they are in his computer. He could print out
the messages that indicate a pattern that he and Mr. Hamel have communicated upon a
variety of subjects, including this one.
Mr. Biga staled when he received the grievance, he prepared a letter regarding whether this
matter was a grievance under the 192 contract. He met with Mr. Stratman to go over this
position and he confirmed his position in writing, that: 1) there was no contract violation; the
grievance procedure is to decide matters of the interpretation of the contract. In this
particular case, there is no contract violation. Mr. Stratman has attached the contract
provision to the grievance, specifically Article 41, paragraph M, about the City's deduction of
2% for VEBA; and 2) Mr. Biga stated he didn't think the grievance was submitted timely and
that was a procedural deficiency. According to the written grievance, the employee signed
this after the first step hearing. According to the hand written date, it was signed on
September 27, 2010, by Mr. Hamel. The discussion was taken care of on September 21,
2010. Also, grievances going to the Civil Service Commission typically are presented by the
192 President, which is in accordance with Article 10 of the contract. However, Mr. Biga
forwarded the grievance to the Civil Service Commission so they could hear this on its merits
if they so chose. In Mr. Biga's discussions with Mr. Stratman, Mr. Stratman advised him of a
state law. Mr. Biga contacted Gregg Schultz, our Labor attorney, who advised Mr. Biga that
the City should proceed and recover the amounts that should have been paid. He said what
the City could do is deduct up to 15% of gross and if that was done over a six (6) month
period, we would recover all of the monies that Mr. Hamel owes. Mr. Biga forwarded a letter
dated October 18, 2010, to Mr. Hamel to offer him two (2) options. One option is continue
on a three (3) year, nine (9) month schedule or he would go to 15%. He gave Mr. Hamel a
date based upon the recommendation from Mr. Schultz that Mr. Hamel was to let him know
by October 22, 2010, which way he wants to proceed. If there is another alternative that Mr.
Hamel wants to discuss other than the ones that were presented, they could try to work
something else out, but the direction Mr. Biga received has been from the Finance Director
and also our Labor attorney, Mr. Schultz.
Mr. Stratman believed that under the Michigan Wages and Fringe Benefits Act, a deduction
can only be made if the deduction is within six (6) months after the overpayment occurs. He
believed from that you can only go back six (6) months for the overpayments.
Overpayments that were made beyond six (6) months in the past cannot be collected. He
indicated this may be a legal issue that attorneys are going to fight out, but he wanted to
inform them of that fact. Mr. Biga stated Mr. Stratman had that pointed out to him and all he
could tell Mr. Stratman is he has had contact with Gregg Schultz, the City's Labor attorney,
who indicated that the City could do this. He suggested that Mr. Biga send the letter that he
did send to Mr. Hamel. Mr. Stratman again asked that the payroll deduction be stopped for
the overpayment at this time.
Mr. Tatigian inquired when Mr. Hamel started working for the City. Mr. Hamel stated on
December 4, 2006, and he wasn't informed of this VEBA deduction when he hired in, and it
was never on his paychecks. He said he assumed that it was being taken out the whole
time. Mr. Hamel stated he now sees the withholding deductions for FICA, Federal, etc., etc.,
and there is a notation through payroll for a code number 180, which is a VEBA deduction.
Now there is a code 182, for a VEBA retro deduction from his paycheck. Mr. Hamel stated
he was informed of this deduction on August 25, 2010. Mr. Biga left a voice mail for him to
Page 15 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
call. He called Mr. Biga back on August 25, 2010 after 4:00 p.m., and he left a message on
August 26, 2010 at 8:35 a.m., he called back and spoke with Bob, "not enjoyable." Yes, he
did speak with Bob, and however Bob wants to perceive my attitude at that time, but he did
try to excuse himself from the conversation. Mr. Hamel stated Mr. Biga made his point, he
dropped a bomb on him, "Jim, you owe the City $4,100 for VEBA, how do you want to
handle it?" He told Mr. Biga 'we're done with this conversation." Mr. Tatigian asked what
the deductions have been since August 25^ and how many deductions have they made. Mr.
Hamel stated three paychecks. Normally, they are taking out $46.61 times three and they
are also taking out a retro deduction of $41.92 times three. Mr. Hamel stated he was
informed on August 25, 2010, by an email Payroll would be starting to deduct this on
September 19, 2010 and they informed him earlier than that. Mr. Tatigian restated Mr.
Hamel offered to pay $5.00 in retro VEBA per paycheck. Mr. Hamel confirmed that, and
also stated he offered to have them take his sick time. He stated that Livonia holds all the
cards. They can catch him on the way out the door. He stated he wouldn't leave until he
and the City settled up.
Mr. Campau asked Mr. Hamel if he thought the City deserved their money back. Mr. Hamel
said that was not his call and what is fair is fair. Mr. Campau reminded Mr. Hamel he was
paid $42.00 more than he should have been for more than three (3) years. Mr. Stratman
asked if it was fair to take the money from Mr. Hamel now. Mr. Campau stated that was not
the question. Mr. Campau again asked if it was fair that he got more money than the other
employees for that length of time. Mr. Hamel stated he didn't create the situation. Mr.
Campau asked why the issue was here before the Civil Service Commission. He asked why
it didn't go before the Board of Trustees. Mr. Biga explained that this is a payroll deduction
and it's a grievance. That is why it is here.
Ms. Mahoney wanted to clarify that Mr. Hamel's request is that the Civil Service Commission
ask Payroll to stop making a deduction from his paycheck which she didn't think they had the
power to do. Mr. Biga believed that was his initial statement, that he didn't have a grievance
under the contract.
Mr. Hamel stated that was the whole thing that is wrong with this. He stated he was notified
he owed $4,000 and here's how the City wanted him to pay it back, please reply. He stated
he replied back something that was equal to what they suggested. He stated he was
informed by Mr. Biga that wasn't good enough. Effective a certain date, Payroll would be
taking it out of his paycheck. Mr. Hamel told Mr. Biga three times "Do not take unauthorized
payroll deductions from my paycheck." He stated he was unaware that employers can go
into his paycheck. Mr. Stratman stated the City was not authorized beyond the 2% to take
any deductions. Mr. Campau stated we would have to get a legal opinion. They can't take
the Union representative's word for it. Mr. Stratman stated he understood that.
Mr. Tatigian stated Mr. Hamel was not entitled to the VEBA deduction and payments should
have been made the whole time. He further asked how it was fair to the rest of the
employees that Mr. Hamel was not having the VEBA deducted. Mr. Tatigian continued that
in Mr. Hamel's case, he was getting something he wasn't entitled to.
Mr. Hamel stated he wasn't looking for blame. He was looking for fairness and his legal
rights, not somebody to tell him, "Whatever you think doesn't matter because we can affect
Page 16 1277th Regular Meeting October 20, 2010
your payroll regardless.' Mr. Tatigian stated that the City can, unless there is a court order
that says they can't. Ms. Mahoney also stated this can be done.
Mr. Stmtman thought they were getting off track and all they were really asking is the payroll
deduction be stopped. He thought if Mr. Biga is going to research this with law, maybe Mr.
Hamel has an attorney in mind. They just don't want the money to come out of Mr. Hamel's
check until this matter has been properly hashed out.
Mr. Tatigian slated in his opinion, the only way you are going to stop the City from doing this
is if Mr. Hamel hires a lawyer, in which case he would have to go down to circuit court and
get a conjunctive order.
Upon a motion by Mr. Tatigian, seconded by Mr. Campau and unanimously adopted, it was
10-401 RESOLVED, That having reviewed AFSCME Union Local 192
Grievance #10-27, dated September 21, 2010, from James Hamel, Building
Inspector, regarding VEBA contributions, and having discussion with DuWayne
Stratman, Inspection Department Steward, AFSCME Union Local 192; James
Hamel, Building Inspector; Dominick Romano, Chief Clerical Steward, AFSCME
Union Local 192; and Robert Biga, Human Resources Director, 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 Guisberl, Secretary III
Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson
Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner
Ronald C. Campau, Commissioner