Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988-06-30 CSB SPECIAL HEARING• • • PRESENT: ABSENT: OTHERS: BOARD OF CAREER SERVICE COMMISSIONERS June 30, 1988 SPECI AL HEARING 9 C~ Janet Kerzic, JoEllen Turner, Harry Fleeno r, Jr., Carla Davidson William Belt Pete Juenemann, President EEA Robert Molloy, Appealant Roy Swanson, AFSCME Representative Nancy Reed, Representing City Attorney Mel BeVirt, Employee Relations Stan Damas, CSB Attorney Chairman Harry Fleenor opened the hearing at 6:36 p.m. The pur- pose of the hearing was to consider the contract grievance filed by Robert Molloy, Jr. on April 19, 1988. and to issue a decision on the disciplinary appeal heard on an earlier date. The first order of business was the decision in the Disciplinary Appeal hea rd previously by the Board. Robert Molloy was present and asked the Board to have the hearing reopened since he ques- tioned the validity of some of the testimony • Nancy Reed, Representative for the City, rebutted since all wit- ness were present at previous hearings and could have been ques- tioned at that time. Board's Attorney Stan Damas, requested permission from both parties to make a statement regarding an extension of the hear- ing, since Charter rules that the Board must grant a decision within 20 days. Appeallant Molloy agreed to the extension. The City was not willing to waive the right to extend, since the Ap- pellant had adequate time to bring these matters before the Board. The Board recessed into Executive Session to discuss the issue. They reconvened at 7:35 p.m., with all members present. Commis- sioner Kerzic moved that the motion of Robert Molloy, Jr. to reopen the hearing for the purpose of taking additional evidence on a discipline hearing which concluded on May 13, 1988, be de- nied for the following reasons: 1. Both parties were given a ful l and fair opportunity to pres- ent all evidence and to cross -examine any and all witnesses on May 13, 1988. 2. The evidence proposed to be introduced through Pete Juenemann was available on May 13, 1988, and no reason for not present- ing it on that day has been presented • • • • 3. The evidence proposed to be introduced through Alex Chapman should have been known to Mr. Molloy. His investigation should have prepared him to present all relevant evidence. 4. Both parties indicated that their cases were concluded on May 13, 1988. commissioner Turner seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Commissioner Facts on the Commissioner suspension. unanimous. Turner moved Disciplinary Fleenor read Commissioner the Board to adopt the Findings and appeal filed by Robert Molloy, Jr. the Findings to uphold the three day Davidson seconded. The vote was Chairman Fleenor adjourned the disciplinary hearing. Commissioner Kerzic moved to grant the City's Motion to Recon- sider in the John Knoth case. Commissioner Turner seconded. The vote was unanimous. All parties will be given copies of the decision. Chairman Fleenor then opened the contract grievance hearing of Robert Molloy, Jr. Appellant Molloy gave opening statements. Nancy Reed was present, representing the City. She presented opening statements and presented two motions for the Board to consider before they hear substance • The first motion was for the Board to reconsider the timeliness issue. The second motion was for the Board to find this grievance to be one of reclassification and not acting pay. The Board entertained arguments on the first motion. Mr. Molloy responded. Then the Board entertained arguments on the second motion. The City presented its argument. Mr. Molloy responded. The City gave rebuttal. Molloy gave rebuttal. The Board ad- journed into Executive Session to consider the motions. The Board reconvened at 8:35 p.m. Commissioner Kerzic was ab- sent, but all other members were present. The Board's Attorney, Stan Damas, presented a question on the pay periods prior to filing of the grievance. The Appellant stipulated that he received a check on April 15, 1988, and filed the grievance on April 19, 1988. This covered pay periods from May 28 to April 10th. The Board again adjourned into Executive Session. The Board reappeared at 9:18 p.m. All members were present. Commissioner Davidson moved that the Career Service Board recon- sider its decision on timeliness in the Robert J. Molloy, Jr., grievance filed on April 19, 1988. She further moved that the Board determine that the grievance filed on April 19, 1988, is timely for claims for acting pay that would have been paid on the check received by Mr. Molloy on April 15, 1988. • • • Any claim for acting pay for work performed prior to that date, is not timely because Mr. Molloy was aware of the duties he per- formed prior to that time and his rate of pay for that work. If he felt it was inappropriate, he should have filed a grievance within 5 days of the receipt of the pay check which paid him at what he felt was an inappropriate rate. Since this grievance was filed within 5 days, an earlier time period is not for consider- ation by the Board. Therefore, any work prior to March 13, 1988 is not for consideration by this Board. Commissioner Turner seconded. The vote was unanimous. Commissioner Turner moved and Commissioner Davidson seconded that the City's second motion, requesting that this grievance be deemed a classification matter, be denied. The Career Service Board has the power and duty to consider grievances for acting pay under Article 7 of the Contract. The Board finds that this grievance is proper before the Board. The vote was unanimous. Attorney Damas clarified the scope of the case to be heard by the Board. He requested parties to review their case, to consider the number of witnesses and the amount of information, with the approximate timeframe it would take to present the case to the Board. The Board allowed a 15 minute recess for this purpose. The Board reconvened with all members present. The City and the Appellant gave their approximation to the Board. Commissioner Davidson moved to continue the hearing on July 7, 1988 at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Commissioner Turner moved to adjourn. The City requested the Board clarify the time period for hearing evidence. The Board informed both parties that they would con- sider evidence and services provided from March 13, 1988, for which the Appellant finds he was acting as a mechanic. Overtime, standby and regular work time will be considered by the Board. The Board will continue this hearing. Ch irmap Harry Fleenor,