My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03/20/2015
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2010's
>
2015
>
03/20/2015
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/29/2018 12:07:24 PM
Creation date
7/10/2015 11:13:42 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Impasse Hearing
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/20/2015
Meeting Body
Firefighter/Paramedic Local 2201
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
was tied up in workers' compensation claims, and he was not able to <br />respond to the mold issues due to it being confidential medical information. <br />Attorney Mierzwa responded to Attorney Mandel's comments and wanted <br />the language in the contract to send the message that the County is going to <br />provide a safe and healthy work environment. <br />C. Article 17 — Staffing <br />10 minutes each, County presents first <br />11:28 <br />a.m. (Clerk's Note: This Article was addressed prior to Article 15) <br />The only paragraph of this Article that remained in dispute was Paragraph <br />17.02. Attorney Mierzwa and Attorney Mandel agreed for the Board to <br />impose the County Administrator's recommendation. <br />D. Article 18 — Vacancies and Promotions <br />15 minutes each, County presents first <br />2:13 <br />p.m. Attorney Mandel said the Paragraphs in dispute under this Article were <br />18.02, 18.03, 18.08, and 18.09. He stated that the County was trying to <br />correct the issues that had arisen in respect to the current promotion <br />process. He explained the promotion exam process for bargaining unit <br />employees; described the 2012 point system that was being considered for <br />promotions; and reviewed the County Administrator's recommended <br />changes to each Paragraph, as shown in Exhibit K. <br />Attorney Mierzwa discussed promotional issues relating to the process in <br />Paragraph 18.03, which provides for the Promotional Board to send three <br />candidates for selection by the Fire Chief, and recommended this <br />Paragraph remain as is. He spoke about Paragraph 18.08, which deals with <br />the application of points in the promotional process, and requested the <br />system remain unchanged. He pointed out that the Fire Chief wanted to be <br />able to appoint individuals who were recently disciplined, failed the test, did <br />not take the test, or did not work for the department, for promotional <br />positions. He said the firefighters support promotions that are made from <br />eligible lists. He also presented data on Indian River County's vacancies <br />and promotions on Lieutenant Fire Medics, for Fiscal Year (FY) 2013-2014 <br />with ranks and salaries, and how they compare to neighboring counties. <br />Attorney Mendel reported that the Union had pulled a promotion <br />procedure off the table and never made a substitution. He explained why <br />testing would not be a viable solution, and requested the Board adopt the <br />County's recommendation. <br />Impasse Hearing <br />March 20, 2015 Page 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.