Administration and County Services Committee

Michael Crawford

Robert McLeod, Chairman

Laura Stanek

December 12, 2005

Minutes

Members Present:

Laura Stanek, Mike Crawford and Bob McLeod

Members Absent:

None

Others Present:

Pete Garwood

1.       Meeting called to order at 1:30 p.m.

2.       Public Comment

         None.

3.       Grievance Hearing – Benefits

         On behalf of Julie Palka, Commission on Aging - Sales Clerk

Union present:  Bob Donick, Teamsters Local 214 Business Representative, Mike Neubecker, Union Steward and Julie Palka

Bob Donick, Business Representative from Teamsters, informed the Committee that the Union is basing their appeal on past practice.

The County has included Ms. Palka in the short term disability (STD) plan since 1996 and has paid Ms. Palka vacation days and paid leave days since 1998.  Mr. Donick argued that this established a past practice.

Mr. Donick proposed to red line Ms. Palka’s position so that she would continue receiving the STD, personal days, and vacation days.  The deal would not extend to any other part-time regular employee.  When she leaves the position, the deal is over.

Peter Garwood, Coordinator/Planner, indicated that he didn’t believe this was a past practice because no one in management with authority knew the benefits were being paid to Ms. Palka.  It was instead a mistake that, when it was identified, management took steps to correct.

The law allows an employer to bring a practice back in line with the contract language if the mistake was made unknowingly.

Bob McLeod asked Mr. Neubecker how he came to write the letter.

Mr. Neubecker:  I don’t remember back 6 – 7 years ago.  I know I discussed it with the Chief Steward.  I think I talked to someone who gave the opinion that she would be considered a full-time employee.  I don’t remember who.

Union left the room at 2:15 p.m.

Union members returned to the room at 2:30 p.m.

Mr. McLeod informed the Union that the Committee decided to deny the grievance based on the following:

There exists no provisions in the collective bargaining contracts from 1996, 1998, nor in subsequent contracts, that grants short term disability insurance, vacation days or paid leave days for “part-time regular employees”.  The contract clearly states that all three of these benefits are for full-time employees only, (Sections 12.8, 14.1 and 16.2).

The action taken by the Commission on Aging (COA) Board to increase the hours for the position was not endorsed by the Board of Commissioners.

The COA office manager did not have the authority to instruct the payroll department to implement additional benefits for the Nifty Thrifty sales clerk.

The clerk responsible for payroll did not have the authority to add the benefits to the compensation package for a part-time regular position under the General Unit Collective Bargaining Agreement.

“Past practice” does not apply in this case as neither the management nor the Board of Commissioners was aware the position was receiving the additional benefits.  The only way this position should have been receiving the additional benefits is if it was approved by the Board of Commissioners, in which case there likely would have been a letter of understanding.

The union members and representative were told that Ms. Palka will receive a written denial on the grievance.

The union representative and members left the room.

4.       Grievance Hearing – Overtime

         Sheridan Rhoads, Antrim County Transportation (ACT) Director, joined the meeting.

         Union joined the meeting at 2:37 p.m.

Union present:   Bob Donick, Teamsters Local 214 Business Representative, and Bob Daniels, Union Steward

Bob Donick addressed the union’s position on the grievance and explained that it goes back to past practice.  They have always been paid overtime for Saturday and Sundays.

Bob Daniels gave an example of the only time this issue came up.

Bob Daniels example:  An employee worked 5 hours and had to go home because he wasn’t feeling well.  The employee decided to take 8 hours of personal time.  The 8 hours of personal time resulted in 3 hours of overtime over 40 hours that week.  The employee also worked on Saturday which resulted in a couple of hours more of overtime.  Bob Straw, former ACT Director informed Bob Daniels that the employee can’t get time and a half (1 ½) pay for hours taken through personal time.

Mr. McLeod pointed out that the memo from Sheridan Rhoads indicated employees would no longer get paid time and a half (1 ½) on Saturdays as outlined in Section 15.7 (a), (b) and (c).  Yet Mr. Marshall worked the very next Saturday after taking a paid day off on Monday and expected to receive 1 ½ rate of pay.

Union left the room at 2:47 p.m.

Union returned to the room at 3:05 p.m.

Mr. McLeod informed the union members that the grievance was denied based on the following:

The contract language, specifically section 15.7 (a), (b) and (c), is very clear in that it does not support (and actually contradicts) your request.

The fact that employees may have received 1 and ½ their regular rate of pay in the past for a workweek over 40 hours, that included personal leave and vacation leave, does not constitute a past practice.  The only previous discussion with management on this issue resulted in a denial of overtime in accordance with the contract.

The new Antrim County Transportation (ACT) Director identified the clerical error, posted a correction memo on October 14 or 15, and by your own admission, all the employees have been encouraged to read the bulletin board on a daily basis.  The intent of posting the correction on the bulletin board for all to see was to warn all employees that time and a half will not be paid for this situation from that time forward.  If Mr. Marshall would have read the posting he would have had the opportunity to sign up for a special run on Saturday knowing full well he would not get time and a half for the work he did on that Saturday.

You indicated the “…practice goes back ten (10) years or more”.  However, it was never introduced at the bargaining table during this time.  If management was aware that this practice was taking place, it seemed to the Committee that they would have brought it up at the table to address it.  Conversely, it also makes sense that if the Union was concerned with getting paid time and a half for over 40 hours, including personal days and vacation days, and was aware the contract language didn’t support such a policy, they would have proposed a change in the current language over the ten (10) year period.

The meeting moved to the Board of Commissioners’ room.

5.       Public Documents

Charles Koop, Legal Counsel and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer, joined the meeting.

Public Comment

Kent McNeil checked with 3 attorneys and all agreed that a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer being the same person who is writing an ordinance is a conflict of interest.

He also stated that the County or FOIA Officer does not need to know why an individual wants a copy of a public document.

Gene Dawson commented that the big issue is:

When does the public have the right to this information?  He encouraged focusing on fairness and honesty.

Public comment closed.

Mr. McLeod indicated that we have polled some of the surrounding counties to see how they handle this issue.

Mr. Garwood indicated that most seem to agree it becomes public when it is presented to a body subject to the Open Meetings Act.

Mr. McLeod asked whether resolutions should be subject to a month delay if the resolution has not been presented at a prior meeting.

Motion by Mike Crawford, supported by Laura Stanek, to establish a policy that when documents, or partial documents, are presented to a committee, board or commission, “that is subject to the Open Meetings Act” they can be released to the public.  Motion carried – unanimous.

6.       Resolutions

Mr. McNeil requested that resolutions that will be considered by the Board of Commissioners be posted on the internet prior to their consideration.  The Committee indicated that they will consider his request.

7.       Ordinances

Motion by Mike Crawford, supported by Laura Stanek, to recommend to the Board of Commissioners that when an ordinance is presented at a Board meeting, it is not adopted until the next monthly meeting.  Motion carried – unanimous.

8.       Prosecuting Attorney Salary

Charlie Koop, Prosecuting Attorney, presented a salary survey for his position (attachment).

Mr. Koop indicated that a part of his salary (stipend) has not been raised since 1990 (the portion that is related to the Child Support Fund).

The Committee will review the Prosecuting Attorney’s salary study and consider Mr. Koop’s requests at their next meeting.

Meeting adjourned at 4:15 pm.