Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK <br />As grounds: . <br />1.- Your decision states that .there is only one Tradesworker H position and Mr. Lutz <br />would be unable to fiilfill the duties of the position while in possession of a Work permit <br />driver's license. Therefore, it would be impossible for him to fulfill the responsibility of <br />the Tradesworker H position.' However,-- the uncontroverted testimony and evidence <br />presented at the disciplinary hearing and the appeal, establishes that the work permit <br />issued to Mr. Lutz allows him to perform, without restriction, any duties assigned to him <br />by the County, including driving vehicles to and from work on the job, and in response <br />to any calls that may be received by him during his off-duty hours. In fact, Mr. Lutz <br />currently drives a county vehicle under the authority granted by the work permit and has <br />been doing so since shortly after charges were filed. The only testimony which tended <br />to support your position was the self-serving statement that it was possible that there <br />would be increased exposure and liability if Mr. Lutz was involved- in an accident -while- <br />operating under his work permit. However, such concern is misplaced, especially <br />considering that. the County has a number of persons driving vehicles with much worse <br />records than Mr. Lutz, including convictions of DUI, reckless driving and numerous - <br />moving violations. The fact that certain county drivers operate county vehicles with such <br />records and while in possession of work permits, tends to indicate that the County has <br />decided to selectively enforce its personal rules against Mr. Lutz while ignoring violations <br />committed by others. The only liability the County could incur above and beyond that <br />normally imposed in an accident would be if Mr. Lutz or any other employee was driving <br />under the influence of alcohol. At no time was any evidence offered, nor does anyone <br />attempt to claim that Mr. Lutz carried out his duties while under the influence of an <br />alcoholic beverage, either on duty or when on call. <br />. 2. Your decision further states that aside from the driver's license problem, Mr. <br />Lutz could otherwise not totally fulfill the responsibility of-.Tradesworker U. The <br />testimony at the appeal clearly indicates that not only can Mr. Lutz presently qua* as <br />Tradesworker U, he is presently performing all duties established under the position with <br />the exception of supervisory duties. It is true that Mr. Lutz was removed from his <br />position at the jail, however, he continues to perform maintenance and construction work <br />in the labor trades, as required in the definition and has, on occasion, been called by jail <br />personnel to perform services specifically at the jail for which he was trained. The <br />Tradesworker U is not a specific position that requires service at the jail. It allows for <br />maintenance and construction work in labor trade or activities in the County Jail. Mr. <br />Lutz was transferred from primary duties at the jail, but is now performing maintenance <br />and construction . work described within the definition. The only reason he is not <br />exercising supervisory authority is because such duties were strippeJ from him at the time <br />of his demotion. Those duties were removed as a punitive measure against Mr. Lutz, but <br />he otherwise fully performs and qualifies for duties of a Tradesworker H. He is simply not <br />paid commensurate with his experience and abilities. <br />3. The decision regarding the appeal states that "I believe your supervisor had no <br />alternative but to consider disciplinary action." Clearly, Mr. Lutz'simmediate supervisor, <br />Lynn Williams, stated he had the discretionary right to determine whether or not to <br />discipline Mr. Lutz and how such discipline should be imposed. Had such discipline been <br />handed out in an even-handed and consistent basis, Mr. Lutz would probably not feel that <br />.this appeal -was justified. However, Mr. Williams own testimony has established several <br />incidents of conduct involving other members of his department who have been convicted <br />of crimes of equal, or much more severe, nature and carrying much greater penalties. <br />io <br />October 19, 1994 <br />I <br />