2/19/1986 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r The Chairman opened the meeting to the public and asked if anyone present wished to be heard. Paul Peck of Road & Bridge addressed why the workers don't want the evaluation; he informed the Board that at one time when his evaluation was being done, not this last evaluation, his manager was told to lower the evaluations; then two weeks after his was done, the manager was told to raise them because everybody was getting raises off it. Mr. Peck stated that, therefore, he had a lower evaluation than some of the poorer workers employed here, and that isn't right. This is part of the reason the workers don't want any evaluations. If this is done straight across the board, everybody gets the same thing. Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Peck if he realized there was a grievance procedure at that time and whether he considered using it. Mr. Peck confirmed that he knew there was a procedure, but what could you do with it. He emphasized that he did not get a bad evaluation, but there were people he knew that he did more than who got a higher evaluation than he did. Chairman Scurlock stated that in such a situation he personally would have appealed this, and Mr. Peck commented that obviously the Chairman doesn't work for Road & Bridge. Chairman Scurlock noted that he was a school teacher for 14 years; he was a union member and negotiated for the school teachers for about 10 years; and he guaranteed that if any of his people felt they had an unfair evaluation, they appealed it, and they were encouraged to appeal it. Administrator Wright also emphasized that if any employee feels they have an unfair evaluation, they should appeal it. Mr. Peck continued that his evaluation was not a bad one, but there are a lot of people who do not get fair evaluations, and if the one evaluating you did not get a good evaluation, did anyone really think he would rate you higher than he is? 9 FEB . 986BOOK 63 PhQL 699