My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2/19/1986 (2)
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1980's
>
1986
>
2/19/1986 (2)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 11:53:00 AM
Creation date
6/12/2015 11:30:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Call Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
02/19/1986
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Geyer believed if a grievance was filed that it could be <br />stopped at any level by a supervisor and that it had to be <br />approved by -a supervisor in order to be processed, but Adminis- <br />trator Wright said that was not so. Either party can go up. The <br />Administrator noted that he has handled four grievances on <br />dismissals or demotions. <br />Ms. Geyer believed that if the supervisor did not want to <br />address the grievance, the employee would have to walk it through <br />the channels himself, which is exactly why it didn't happen. Ms. <br />Geyer then addressed the matter of the wage proposals and asked <br />if the topped out employees would receive any raise. <br />Administrator Wright stated they would not. The people that <br />are close would go to the top. <br />Ms. Geyer noted that, therefore, 10 or 15 people would not <br />receive any wage increase, and that is exactly why the union <br />didn't accept the proposal. Also, under the merit system, she <br />wished to know if the 2% across the Board would be given to the <br />top people who are not members of the bargaining unit. <br />It was stated that the topped out people who are non-union <br />would not get 2% either, and Ms. Geyer stated that, to her, is <br />not acceptable and she would ask that the Commission accept the <br />Special Master's findings. <br />Glenn Thomas, Road & Bridge, wished to speak on two matters <br />- first re the evaluations. He noted that in April he will have <br />been six months on the job he is doing now.. They hired a new man <br />and if, after his 6 months evaluation, the new man gets a raise <br />and if he doesn't get raised after his 6 months, the new man will <br />be getting 10-154 an hour more than he gets, and he has been <br />there over a year and the new man has only been there 11 months. <br />He did not think that is right. Mr. Thomas explained that he <br />himself went from one job to another job and got a 5% raise just <br />from being promoted. However, according to what this new man <br />started out it, if the new man gets a raise and he doesn't, the <br />new man will be making more than he is. <br />13 <br />19. 1986 BOOK 63 703 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.