Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 63 NSU 698 <br />Commissioner Lyons wished to know how they would propose to <br />insure that it is done objectively. <br />Mr. Scates had a great problem in insuring that it can be, <br />but stated that if a joint committee put together the evaluation <br />form, that is one step. If it is done objectively, that would be <br />step two, and the relationship to the grievance procedure would <br />be the third step. <br />Administrator Wright believed we have a grievance procedure <br />built in now with the evaluation. He emphasized that this was <br />available prior to the contract and that we went to great pains <br />to develop fair evaluation forms. The Administrator stated that <br />he has not heard any complaints re the type of forms used now, <br />and he asked if Mr. Scates knew of any objections the bargaining <br />unit has. <br />Mr. Scates stated they had many objections; it was not the <br />form they objected to, however; it was the objectivity. <br />Discussion ensued, and Mr. Scates emphasized that they worked <br />hard to be sure that the evaluation system was grievable. <br />Chairman Scurlock felt the final check and balance is the <br />grievance procedure, and if at that point the employee is upheld, <br />obviously the system works. <br />Mr. Scates wished the Board to keep in mind that the <br />grievance procedure now has a binding arbitration as its final <br />step; previously it did not. <br />Chairman Scurlock believed it is clear that basically it <br />would be very difficult to find a procedure that would be fair <br />and objective in the union's mind, and Mr. Scates agreed it would <br />be very difficult. <br />Administrator Wright stated that he has a basic argument <br />that hard working employees should be paid more and not the same <br />as those who are marginal. He reiterated that in his proposal <br />greater than half would receive more than is proposed by the <br />Special Master. <br />8 <br />