Laserfiche WebLink
Mike Scott, Business Representative for Teamsters Local 769, <br />certified representative for Indian River County employees in the <br />blue collar unit, advised that Mr. Hart had admitted that he worked <br />throughout the day, lost his keys and backtracked his steps <br />throughout the day looking for the keys. He was frustrated and <br />angry and used poor judgment by taking the truck home. He came <br />back the next day with another set of keys. Mr. Hart has been off <br />now for approximately 2 months without pay which is a great <br />hardship for an individual, especially today. He has had a <br />significant amount of punishment and we think the punishment is <br />enough and that Mr. Hart should be reinstated at this time with the <br />time off being considered as a suspension. Mr. Hart should be put <br />on notice of some type that any further agtions of this nature will <br />not be tolerated. During the first appeal hearing, Mr. Chandler <br />apparently was not convinced that if Mr. Hart was reinstated these <br />type of things would not happen again. Mr. Hart failed to convince <br />him. I don't know how Mr. Hart can convince anyone of that. Mr. <br />Scott stated that he has not read anywhere in the record that Mr. <br />Hart has a history of being dishonest. He felt that his coming <br />forward immediately and telling the truth demonstrates that he is <br />not a dishonest person. Mr. Scott stressed that Mr. Hart has <br />learned his lesson through the severity of the 2 months that he's <br />been off and the financial loss that he has suffered. Mr. Hart is <br />a fairly longterm employee with the County, having been with the <br />County for close to 7 years. Mr. Hart would like to come back to <br />the County and would like to do a good job for the County. He <br />regrets making a mistake. What he's asking for today is a reversal <br />of the decision, to place him back to work. <br />Commissioner Bird noted that the decision was not made based <br />on an isolated incident and wanted the record to show that there <br />was at least one other incident on Mr. Hart's record which <br />contributed to the termination decision. <br />Mr. Scott pointed out that there is no appeals process for the <br />previous incident under current employee policies for an employee <br />who receives a discipline less than a suspension or termination. <br />The employee has a small space on a form in which they can write a <br />rebuttal or some type of statement, but there is no appeals <br />process. Mr. Scott didn't know that the facts in that discipline <br />are accurate or that they're not accurate; he did know that on the <br />statement Mr. Hart says: " I was never told not to have lunch <br />there. Now I know and I will stay away from there." Mr. Scott <br />6 <br />DECEMBER 6, 1994 <br />