Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/19/1986 (2)Wednesday, February 19, 1986 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, February 19, 1986, at 5:00 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of -County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The hour of 5:00 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VER® BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Nc,+,ce in the matter of MO-4en RPtabrT in the lished in said newspaper in the issues of Fob 1,? -1 19530, Court, was pub- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this ? S . day off.,^. A.D. 19 'BC' (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian FTiver County, PUBLIC NOTICE j The Board of County Commissioners of Indian . River County, Florida will conduct a Public Hear- ing on Wednesday, February 19, 1986 at 5:00 P.M. in the County Commission Chambers at the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, to receive the Special Master's Report relating to impasse' resolutions between the Communication Work- ers of America and Indian River, County. At this hearing the Board of County Commissioners will listen to the parties reasons for recommending rejection of parts of the Special Master's Report. You are invited to attend. If any person decides to appeal any decision made'on the matter, he/she will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purposes, he/- she may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record in- cludes the testimony in evidence on which the appeal is based. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DON C. SCURLQCK, JR., CHAIRMAN Feb. 18, 1986 FE1 BOOK F;g. �r 6(. BOOK .63 F,1,E 692 The Chairman called the meeting to order and announced that it is for the purpose of addressing the Administrator's response to the Special Master's Report in the matter of the impasse between the Communications Workers of America and the County. He ­ informed those present that he would ask the Administrator to explain his position and then the Union representative to present the workers' side, after which he would open the meeting to the public. Administrator Wright explained his position as set out in the following letter: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (305) 567-8000 January 24, 1986 Florida Public Employees Relations Commission 2586 Seagate Drive Turner Building, Suite 100 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Suncom Telephone: 424-1011 Re: Communications Workers of America & Indian River County Contract Impasse: Response to Special Master's Recom- mendation Dear Sir: The County .Administration takes exception to all three recommendations set forth in the Special Master's report. The Special Master recommended a "four percent across the board wage increase on the existing base be provided to all employees within the bargaining unit except those employees who are at the top of their respective pay scales." The County Administration proposes a two percent across the board increase for all employees, including. probationary employees but excluding those employees at the top of their respective pay scale. In addition, the Administration recom- mends a 1.8 percent merit increase for non -probationary employ- ees who most recently have received a "Satisfactory" personnel evaluation; a 2.8 percent merit increase for non -probationary employees who most recently received a "Very Good" personnel evaluation; and a 3.8 percent merit increase for those employees with an "Outstanding" personnel evaluation. Again, the merit pay would not be applicable to those employees who have reached their maximum pay levels. 2 As of the first of January 1986, there were 190 County employees in the bargaining unit. The net effect of the Admini- stration's recommendation is illustrated on the following page: No. of Effected Culmulative Employees and Percent of (Percentage of Wage Increase Employee Status or Rating Employees) Outstanding Rating 7 (4%) 5.80 Very Good Rating 88 (46%) 4.8% Satisfactory Rating 48 (25%) 3.8% Probationary Status 27 (14%) 2 % Near Pay Scale Maximum 5 (3%) 0-1% Marginal or Below Rating 5 (3%) 0% Pay Scale Maximum 10 (5%) 0% Under the Administration's recommendation, one half of the effected employees would receive a pay raise that is greater than the Special Master's recommendation. One fourth of the employees would receive a fraction less than the Special Mas- ter's recommendation. Fourteen percent would receive two per- cent more and eleven percent would receive less than his recom- mendation. The Special Master recommended "a three percent one time increase be provided in the form of a 'bonus' to all bargaining unit employees who are at the top of their respective scales." The Administration believes a job only has a "certain worth" and an employee's longevity in a position should not determine the cost of the position. However, recognizing the fact all positions should be periodically reviewed to determine its comparative worth, the Administration recommends an outside, independent consultant be retained at County expense to review all non -contractural job descriptions in the County and make recommendations with regard to an adequate pay scale for each position. It is recommended the consultant's report, if accepted by the County Commission, be used to possibly adjust pay scales for "topped out" employees in the 1986-87 fiscal year. ' With regard to the Special Master's final recommendation the contract be effective January 1, 1986, it has always been the Administration's position that a contract can only take effect the day it is signed by both parties. The issue of retroactivity to any artificial date that occurred prior to • the contract acceptance date should not be considered. Very truly yours, c ichael Wright County Administr for Administrator Wright emphasized that his position is that until we do an objective pay scale study, we should not arbitrarily increase wage scales. 3 He stressed thaft he always BOOK 63PAGE 69 FEB 191986 BOOK 63 FnIF6.94 has stood by his position that a contract is effective the day it is signed, and he would implore the Board to stick by that. Commissioner Wodtke asked if there is any disagreement about hospitalization, and Administrator Wright advised that was settled. John W. Scates came before the Board representing the Communication Workers of America. Mr. Scates pointed out that he represents the blue collar bargaining unit, and stressed that same bargaining unit is comprised of the county's loyal dedicated hard working employees, and they have not changed overnight just because they decided to join the union. Mr. Scates reviewed the recommendations by the Special Master, which the union accepts. Said recommendations are as follows: After careful consideration of all the facts as pre- . . sented at the hearing and associated research, the Special Master recommends the following. A. That a four percent (4%) across the board wage in crease on the existing base be provided to all employees within the bargaining unit except those probationary enployees and those employees who are at the top of their respective pay scales. B. That a three percent (3%) one time increase be pro- vided in the form of a "bonus" to all bargaining unit employees who are at the top of their respective pay scale. As mentioned previously, research by the Special Master has verified the problem and management has acknowledged in part, through its testimony, its existance and need for resolu- tion. C. That the contract become effective January 1, 1986 pending acceptance and ratification by the Communication Workers of America and the Indian River County Council. The issue of retroactivity is of great concern to both parties. The good faith negotiations which has taken both manage - 4 r � � ment and the union through nine (9) sessions on a ",first time" three year contract is a long and tedious process. The Special Master believes the question "what is fair" can be answered by accepting these recommendations. The Special Master feels that the spirit of cooperation displayed at the hearing by the Communication. Workers of America and Indian River County will prevail in the future to provide the public with the best possible services. Dr. Paul D. Thompson Mr. Scates noted that during bargaining the County's final proposal on wages to the union by their negotiator Mr. Dean was 3.8% across the Board, nothing to do with merit, nothing for probationary employees, and nothing for the topped out employees; that was rejected, and the union countered with 6% across the board for everybody. The County is now reverting through Mr. Wright's proposal back to a proposal the county made and then abandoned during bargaining. Mr. Scates felt both sides should go along with the Special Masters recommendation. He noted that the hearing before a public meeting is the last resort, and the union is here to plead their case and hopefully have the Board accept the Special Master's recommendations. Chairman Scurlock inquired how many dollars the total pool of funds represented by Mr. Wright's proposal is compared to the dollars represented in the union proposal. Mr. Scates believed the actual cost is close, within one or two points of a percent. The 3% one time bonus unevens the scale, he could not argue that, but he noted there are only 10 or 15 who are topped out at the moment. Chairman Scurlock requested that he explain the purpose of the one time bonus for the topped out people, and Mr. Scates explained that it is to bring these people up to the same rate as surrounding counties, i.e., Brevard, Osceola, Okeechobee, St. Lucie. 5 FEB 19.1986 BOOK BOOK 63 P,-QE696 Commissioner Lyons believed there was a statement made that this proposal is a different proposal.then we had on the table. Is that correct? Administrator Wright believed we offered merit pay, and it was rejected and then it was withdrawn. Mr. Scates stated that the county's last final offer at the bargaining table was 3.8% across the board and no merit. Administrator Wright believed we proposed at sometime in the bargaining a merit and longevity plan, and it was rejected, but Mr. Scates believed at the very beginning there was 1% with merit. The Administrator asked Personnel Director Hoder what the next to last offer we made was, but Chairman Scurlock stated that he did not wish to get into every proposal and counter -proposal, which he believed would be non-productive. He asked the Administrator if he concurred that, as far as the dollars are concerned, the two proposals are fairly similar. Administrator Wright believed the employees would receive more money under what he is proposing. He proceeded to review the figures set out in his letter as to what percentage of employees would receive what percentage of increase at the various ratings, and after further discussion, it was generally agreed the cost is almost identical. Discussion then ensued regarding the Special Master's recommendation of.a 3% one time increase for those who are topped out and how many this would affect. Administrator Wright be- lieved it may affect as many as 15, but not more than that. Chairman Scurlock asked if County policy has been fairly consistent in this regard-, and Administrator Wright stated to his knowledge, we have been very consistent. Chairman Scurlock believed the intent is to stay with that until the consultant's study recommends a change. Mr. Scates understood a study is going on, but he wished to point out the great difference between the proposals. The 6 Special Master's recommendation has nothing whatsoever to do with merit, and that was one of the major things the bargaining unit desired to get away from because it was felt the merit was not done properly and was not objective. Commissioner Wodtke inquired if Mr. Scates was saying the union does not want to consider any pay package that would deal in any way with merit. Mr. Scates emphasized that the union wants to accept the Special Master's recommendations. One thing that keeps popping up at this hearing is reverting back to the merit system, and this was not brought up at the final round of bargaining nor was it presented to the Special Master. Had the County made a proposal similar to what they have here and had told the union that was their final offer, it may have been possible to wrap the contract up at that time, but that was not the County's position, and he felt it is important that the Board understand that. Chairman Scurlock believed what he is hearing is that there was never a proposal to go to a merit concept and that was never rejected by the union. Mr. Scates confirmed that during the course of bargaining there were several proposals countered back and forth on merit and on across the board increases, and the county's final best offer was 3.8% and they abandoned the merit system. Chairman Scurlock believed the union at some point was willing to accept some sort of merit concept, and Mr. Scates felt they probably would have.. Commissioner Bird noted that, in other words, the union's position is not always opposed to a merit type increase, assuming they have -confidence that the evaluation system used is fair and equitable. Mr. Scates stated that as a union they would have nothing against it if it can be objective and done fairly and checks and balances are in place. 7 63 67 FE 19 19 6 Bool< F4�� BOOK 63 NSU 698 Commissioner Lyons wished to know how they would propose to insure that it is done objectively. Mr. Scates had a great problem in insuring that it can be, but stated that if a joint committee put together the evaluation form, that is one step. If it is done objectively, that would be step two, and the relationship to the grievance procedure would be the third step. Administrator Wright believed we have a grievance procedure built in now with the evaluation. He emphasized that this was available prior to the contract and that we went to great pains to develop fair evaluation forms. The Administrator stated that he has not heard any complaints re the type of forms used now, and he asked if Mr. Scates knew of any objections the bargaining unit has. Mr. Scates stated they had many objections; it was not the form they objected to, however; it was the objectivity. Discussion ensued, and Mr. Scates emphasized that they worked hard to be sure that the evaluation system was grievable. Chairman Scurlock felt the final check and balance is the grievance procedure, and if at that point the employee is upheld, obviously the system works. Mr. Scates wished the Board to keep in mind that the grievance procedure now has a binding arbitration as its final step; previously it did not. Chairman Scurlock believed it is clear that basically it would be very difficult to find a procedure that would be fair and objective in the union's mind, and Mr. Scates agreed it would be very difficult. Administrator Wright stated that he has a basic argument that hard working employees should be paid more and not the same as those who are marginal. He reiterated that in his proposal greater than half would receive more than is proposed by the Special Master. 8 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 FEB 19 1996 Boor, 60 MGE700 Administrator Wright could not say, but advised that he could say that the people he evaluates have brought in higher and lower evaluations of the people under them. Mr. Peck noted that they obviously work for different people. The Chairman asked Personnel Director Lois Hoder how many grievances have been filed during the last two years or so under the existing procedure, and she stated that none have. A lady from the audience inquired whether the employee's comments made on the evaluation don't count as a grievance. Personnel Director Hoder was asked if an employee puts on their evaluation that they disagree whether that would constitute a grievance, and Mrs. Hoder stated that it would not; they would have to request a hearing in writing. Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Peck if he had any feeling that some measure of retribution would be taken if he went through the grievance procedure, and Mr. Peck stated that two years ago he believed it would have been a useless task, but he does not now. Robert Sebree of Road & Bridge informed the Board that he wanted to back up Paul Peck re anybody in the field getting an evaluation. Mr. Sebree stated that he has always gotten a good one, but at times he has seen and heard "Hey, I can't evaluate as high as I would like to because I have got to give room for improvement." If he signed the evaluation under protest, Mr. Sebree doubted it -would ever get up to the administrative level. He continued that during twenty years of service, he has filled out plenty of evaluations on other people, and he felt sure if he was to evaluate someone higher than himself, that person was going to get his job. By the same token, if he had an evaluation he disagreed with, Mr. Sebree was sure that without a union he would be out of the door before the grievance ever got through, and he was not necessarily a union man. Administrator Wright assured him that was not so and, in fact, that hurt his feelings. He noted that he had a grievance 10 the other day where he reinstated a man who had been dismissed for not meeting certain criteria, and he can guarantee there was no retribution in that case. Chairman Scurlock noted that there appears to be a feeling that the evaluations cannot be done fairly and that the grievance procedure does not work, and it seems the people are not using the process. He felt this should be looked into. Harry Lutz, Building Maintenance, came before the Board and stated that he felt the merit system is a good system and that the Commissioners have done a good job with it. He felt the union, however, has done a bad job because the employees are still waiting there without a raise, and they never will gain back what they have lost. Mr. Lutz believed you will make more money with the merit system, and just because some people can't do the job that other people can, that is their problem. Esrom Dorsett informed the Board that he has been with Road & Bridge for nine years, and he qualified to do the job he tried for, but he didn't get it. Another employee who worked here as a foreman quit and went to Piper, and then came back in 9 days and was rehired and took the job he was qualified for and able to do. Mr. Dorsett wished to have it explained to him just why he was put out of place by this other man. Administrator Wright requested that Mr. Dorsett give him the details of just what happened and when it happened, etc., as he did not know the circumstances. Mr. Dorsett advised that he tried talking to Public Works Director Davis and everybody else about it, and Mr. Davis said he was looking into it, but apparently it never did get to Mr. Wright. Chairman Scurlock asked if he had filed a grievance, and Mr. Dorsett stated that the contract had not been signed at that time. The Chairman informed Mr. Dorsett that we had a grievance procedure in existence before, and Mr. Dorsett stated that he did FEB 19 1986 BooK 63 701. FEB 19 1986 BOOK 63 Pa,t 702 not know about anything about it, but he did try to go through channels and through the chain of command. He emphasized that he just wanted to say that somebody did him wrong. The Chairman asked Director Hoder about the timeframe on the`' grievance procedure. Mrs. Hoder explained that the procedure is to submit the grievance in writing to your immediate supervisor. If he doesn't answer within five days, the employee can go to the department head and from the department head on to personnel and from there to the Director of General Services and then to the County Commission. Commissioner Lyons believed we went to a lot of trouble several years ago to adopt a personnel policy which he believed included a formalized grievance procedure, and he had felt that policy was supposed to be disseminated to the employees. Mrs. Hoder advised that a personnel manual was developed and was given to the department heads; the employees were given an employees' handbook which contained the grievance procedure. Chairman Scurlock inquired if there was any program to explain this procedure. Mrs. Hoder stated that at the time the employee was interviewed, the department head would go over a list of items pertinent to that department as well as items in the handbook. Chairman Scurlock believed it might not be a bad idea to explain the book to everybody so they know what is available. Kathleen Geyer, president of Local 3180, noted that the question of the evaluation seems to be a topic here as well as the grievance procedure. She stressed that the union now has a grievance procedure that will be used by the employees, and she wished to know how long the former grievance procedure was in effect and how many grievances were filed. Mrs. Hoder stated that it was in effect since the personnel rules and regulations were developed, or several years; and there were no grievances filed that she knew of. 12 Ms. Geyer believed if a grievance was filed that it could be stopped at any level by a supervisor and that it had to be approved by -a supervisor in order to be processed, but Adminis- trator Wright said that was not so. Either party can go up. The Administrator noted that he has handled four grievances on dismissals or demotions. Ms. Geyer believed that if the supervisor did not want to address the grievance, the employee would have to walk it through the channels himself, which is exactly why it didn't happen. Ms. Geyer then addressed the matter of the wage proposals and asked if the topped out employees would receive any raise. Administrator Wright stated they would not. The people that are close would go to the top. Ms. Geyer noted that, therefore, 10 or 15 people would not receive any wage increase, and that is exactly why the union didn't accept the proposal. Also, under the merit system, she wished to know if the 2% across the Board would be given to the top people who are not members of the bargaining unit. It was stated that the topped out people who are non-union would not get 2% either, and Ms. Geyer stated that, to her, is not acceptable and she would ask that the Commission accept the Special Master's findings. Glenn Thomas, Road & Bridge, wished to speak on two matters - first re the evaluations. He noted that in April he will have been six months on the job he is doing now.. They hired a new man and if, after his 6 months evaluation, the new man gets a raise and if he doesn't get raised after his 6 months, the new man will be getting 10-154 an hour more than he gets, and he has been there over a year and the new man has only been there 11 months. He did not think that is right. Mr. Thomas explained that he himself went from one job to another job and got a 5% raise just from being promoted. However, according to what this new man started out it, if the new man gets a raise and he doesn't, the new man will be making more than he is. 13 19. 1986 BOOK 63 703 Fl.B 19 1986 4 BOOK 63 PAGE 704 Administrator Wright advised that the reason he did not recommend a raise for the people on probationary status is that at the end of their probationary period, they are evaluated and they then receive a pay increase equivalent to their rating on the evaluation. Mr. Thomas noted that his other question relates to Mr. Dorsett who spoke to the Board earlier about his job, and he wished to know if it would help if there was a petition signed to support Mr. Dorsett.or whether Mr. Dorsett can go further than Public Works Director Davis. Administrator Wright interjected that Mr. Dorsett could come to him. Mr. Thomas stated that there are several other people who feel strongly about the fact that the man who quit the county and went to Piper, came back and was rehired, and then was given the job Mr. Dorsett was qualified for and should have got by rights. Administrator Wright felt what Mr. Thomas is saying is that the man who quit shouldn't have been rehired, but Mr. Thomas stated that he was not saying the man shouldn't have been rehired; what he objected to was that two weeks after he was rehired, he took this man's job who had nine years seniority. The Administrator stated that he would have to have all the facts. Chairman Scurlock noted that Mr. Dorsett apparently stayed with the county. He believed what we are trying to state is that this grievance procedure has got to be used, and we need to have it used to know if it works. Mr. Thomas inquired if Mr. Dorsett can still file a grievance even though he has gone past the time limitation. Commissioner Lyons did not believe there is a time limit on when you can file; just a limit on the succeeding steps. Mike Owens from Fleet Management informed the Board that he had a little problem and talked to Mr. Dean about it, but did not file a grievance on paper. Finally Mr. Dean settled it, but it took over a year for him to get a simple answer. Mr. Owens noted 14 that he is a topped out employee and he has 11 years service with the county. He would like to know why his cost of living hasn't increased any more. Administrator Wright noted that he is not saying it hasn't; what he is saying is that a job is worth a certain amount of money. Three years ago the Board adopted a policy of saying these jobs are worth a particular amount of money, and the Board now has authorized another study to see if adjustments should be made. Mr. Owens stated that he was a little leery of these people who keep coming in to make studies as he did not believe he has benefited from any of them. Commissioner Bird stated that he has not seen any study that did anything but recommend increases in pay scales in certain areas, and the Chairman agreed that generally overall, it has increased the pay scales. He asked Mrs. Hoder if we have a time period in which the county has to act on these grievances, i.e., some time frame for an ultimate answer from the top man who will make the decision. General Services Director Dean felt the answer to that under the personnel rules and regulations is no, but now that we have a contract in place, there is a formal grievance procedure that has to be followed. Administrator Wright pointed out that there was a grievance procedure before, but Director Dean felt the one now is different than the one we had. Chairman Scurlock asked what now would be the maximum time for someone to get a final answer if they start through the process. Mr. Scates answered that the maximum time to file would be five days, and there are a specific number of days between the succeeding steps. Chairman Scurlock hoped it won't take a year to get an answer, and Mr. Scates stated that it will not; there are time 15 FEB19 19 6 MoK 63. 705 F.� Fr,__EB 19 196 BOOK 63 FA -'J -C 706 7 limits; and there is binding arbitration. He believed testimony re the old grievance procedure with zero grievances filed is a pretty good indication that it did not work. He believed under the union contract, if they went years without a grievance being filed, there would be no need for a grievance procedure. Commissioner Bird realized the evaluation system has imper- fections, but noted we are one of the biggest employers in the county and when you are dealing with so many, you must have some type of system to assess the work ability of your employees. Obviously, such a system will never be perfect, and he did agree it is necessary for the Administrator to make this evaluation as fair and as objective as possible and to have grievance procedures if people don't think they are being treated fairly. Discussion continued re the grievance procedure, which actually is in effect now since the contract has been ratified except for wages, and the importance of using it without fear of retaliation; everyone agreed that we want a grievance procedure that does work. Lynn Williams, Superintendent of Buildings and Grounds, commented that having spent time with the County and in the General Services Division, including the area of personnel and in supervision of employees, he could state that there have been grievances filed through the old procedure; they have been overturned on the administrative level and other levels; and he did not think it was an unworkable procedure. Maybe none were from Road & Bridge, possibly because they did not understand there was a procedure or how to initiate it, but Mr. Williams emphasized that the departments he came in contact with were aware the procedure did exist; and they did use it. If in the near future there is a pickup in the number of grievances, it may be that more now are aware and the union will be supporting the employees and initiating the grievances that possibly should have been filed in the past. He did not think if a grievance was done as it should have been done that it would have taken a year to 16 get an answer. Speaking for himself, Mr. Williams reported that he has had a grievance on a termination and had it overturned by Mr. Wright and the employee reinstated; so, it has happened, and he did not believe the Commission should get the idea the procedure was never used. He further stated that he felt sure that his employees have a good enough relationship with him and their foreman that they could stand up and present a problem. If there is a problem in Road & Bridge, obviously that needs to be addressed. Danny (Ralph) Cochran, Utilities Department, informed the Board that he has been with the county just six months (his probation was up yesterday), but he had nine years experience in Brevard County working wastewater and distribution. He reported that he filed a grievance twice in the time he worked there, and his head supervisor threw it in the garbage can; so, he made it a point to go to the commissioners himself and then got some results. Mr. Cochran did feel if there had not been a union up there, they would have fired him after what he said to the supervisor. Mr. Cochran noted that his starting wages here were less than in Brevard County. Also, he is on 24 hour call, which he is not compensated for unless he goes out on a call; he has to be available even at 2:00 A.M., and he noted that this county does not even have a jet cleaner that will knock the stoppage out let alone clean a line. He was informed that we have just bought this equipment. Mr. Cochran continued that he feels this is a good county, certainly better than Brevard. He noted that he was told that after his six months probation he would receive a 5% increase, and he wished to know if this also pertains to the cost of living as he noted the merit system doesn't have anything to do with cost of living. Administrator Wright stated that he could not answer that until the Commission votes today, but explained that under the 17 FEB 19- 1996 aero F 707' FEB 19 1986 Boa 63 FA.cE708 existing rules, Mr. Cochran would receive up to a 5% increase, depending on his evaluation. Mr. Cochran then informed the Board that his supervisor did his probationary evaluation, rated him very good, and gave him 80" points, but a week later he brought the evaluation back and it was lowered to 74 points and changed from very good to satisfac- tory. Chairman Scurlock felt possibly Mr. Cochran might want to file a grievance. Mr. Cochran did not feel he was in a position to file a grievance as his probation was just up yesterday, but the Chairman assured him that he was in a position to file a grievance and it should have no effect on how he is treated. Mr. Cochran continued to emphasize that he could not understand how he could get such a low evaluation when he has nine years experience. Commissioner Bird believed the evaluation is based on the employee's performance here during the six months, not his previous experience, and the Administrator agreed. He could not answer Mr. Cochran's questions and advised that he go through the grievance process. Bob Halliday of the Utilities Department next came before the Board and advised that his six months probation period just ended about two weeks ago. His evaluation came up and his supervisor marked.him very good in every category, and put a nice comment on the evaluation. This evaluation was then passed on to the head of Utilities, who read it over, whited out everything his supervisor had written, and changed his rating in everything from very good to satisfactory. Mr. Thomas stated that his supervisor was rather disgusted, but said he couldn't do anything about it and told him he could file a grievance if he wanted to. Mr. Thomas continued that he asked if that would effect him getting his increase, and the supervisor said no, that he still would be getting his increase. However, when he asked him again 18 this morning if he would get his increase in this next pay check, he said "Don't hold your breath." Mr. Thomas stated that he was then led to believe that he might not even be getting any increase because of the fact that his rating was knocked down. Chairman Scurlock stated that he again would recommend that a grievance be filed. Mr. Halliday noted that he did not find out that he may not be getting an increase before he signed his evaluation, and asked if it is too late to file a grievance. Discussion continued re Mr. Halliday's evaluation being whited out and changed, and Chairman Scurlock asked if that could be caused by the department head disagreeing with the approach the evaluator takes. He noted that had happened to him in the school system where someone said whoever evaluated him was just too liberal. Paul Peck asked if the Chairman felt that is a good approach to an evaluation, and the Chairman stated he was not saying it was a good approach but that he knew it has happened. Commissioner Bird asked the Administrator if that is our procedure, and Administrator Wright confirmed that can happen, but if someone is dissatisfied, they should talk to someone about it. Mr. Cochran noted that the same thing happened to him; his evaluation was changed and lowered. Chairman Scurlock asked the Administrator to check on this, but the Administrator pointed out that we have a contract and if people have a grievance, they need to follow that procedure. The Chairman clarified that he was not talking about their specifics; -he just wanted the Administrator to check the evaluation procedure and how it is being implemented. The Administrator confirmed that he would take a look at it. Commissioner Bird felt if we have department heads who feel the supervisors under them are rating their employees too high, then -they really ought to talk to that supervisor and change 19 BOOK 63 pt'H 709 FEB 19 1�II� F"—,— FEB i. 9 8 '1 Bou 63 pnE 710 their system of rating rather than have them show the evaluation to the employee and then have it whited out and changed when the employee has been led to believe he would be getting a good rating and then gets something else. The Administrator agreed we must try to standardize our evaluation process. The Chairman asked if anyone else present wished to be heard. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing. Commissioner Bird asked if the situation of people being topped out and not receiving an increase is being followed consistently throughout the county - white collar and blue collar alike - and this was confirmed. Commissioner -Bird felt that it is quite possible we may have some adjustments result from the study being made. Administrator Wright stated that one of the things he empha- sized to the consultant was that the study must be as objective as he can make it. If the study shows that there are some serious disparities, he will recommend to that Board that we correct them. Chairman Scurlock felt the problem has arisen in the past where we could not attract and keep the type of people needed because of the salaries offered, and we have voted to change them. Administrator Wright cited the case of a Code Enforcement officer who had been with the county for fifteen years and was topped out for two years because the job was only worth just so much money. Discussion continued re advancing by changing pay grades and moving into a higher pay scale, and Bob Valentine of Fleet 20 � � r Management asked permission to speak. Mr. Valentine stated that he is topped out, but he can't get into those higher positions because they are already filled by men who are holding titles they are not worthy of. He emphasized that those men cannot do what that job calls for; there are three chief mechanics position, and none of the people in those positions are chief mechanics. Chairman Scurlock asked if there isn't a process to get rid of them if they can't do the job, and the Administrator felt Mr. Valentine is talking about his bosses. Administrator Wright stated that he has a lot of respect for Mr. Valentine's opinions and that is one of the areas where he wants to take a good hard look. He believed there are four people in this area that are topped out. Chairman Scurlock agreed we must address this. Commissioner Wodtke stated that the greatest asset this county has is our employees, and if the employees have a problem with the procedure, he believed that Administrator Wright wants to know about it. He noted that when he has gotten calls from disgruntled employees, he has referred them to Mr. Wright. Commissioner Wodtke stressed the importance of letting people know you have a problem and emphasized that if anyone feels there are repercussions or any problem from following this procedure, he and all the Commissioners want to hear about it. Commissioner Wodtke then asked Attorney Vitunac what our.options are if we do not approve the Special Master's recommendations. Attorney Vitunac explained that this is the final step in the whole process. The law allows each side an opportunity to make its own case before the public; then the law says "Thereafter the legislative -body shall take such action as it deems to be in the public interest to resolve all the disputed impasse issues." He stated that gives the Commission a full range of choices. 21 FE E 19.1986 Boos 63 PAGE 711 BOOK 63 rn,E 712 Chairman Scurlock addressed the recommendations and stated that he is not in favor of the retroactivity and felt such a stand is consistent with what we have always done. On the issue of the topped out people, he felt that has been resolved to some extent since we have already authorized the study to document what positions should be reevaluated and noted that he asked the Administrator to look at those topped out positions specifically. If the Administrator does identify that there are categories that are out of line, then whatever process is necessary to correct this should be initiated. Commissioner Lyons advised that he supported the Adminis- trator's recommendations. He had no problem if we find the topped out situation is something that should be acted on quickly as he felt something can be set up to do that, but he would go along with the Administrator's recommendation re the time, the amount of increase, and the treatment of the topped out people. Commissioner Bowman concurred. She stated that she was just glad to have this grievance matter aired and hoped the supervisors would take it upon themselves to see that their employees understand it. Commissioner Bird stated that he basically would go along with the Administrator's recommendations. He believed the merit type increase and the way it is set up represents a fair and equitable increase to our blue collar workers, that it does put into the overall blue collar workers pool an amount at least equal to or in excess of what 4% across the board would have given them, and that it is consistent with the increases we have granted so far this year. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Lyons, the Board unanimously approved the Administrator's recommendations and directed the Administrator specifically to take a look at the topped out positions. 22 Commissioner Bird asked when the increases will be effective, and Attorney Vitunac advised that it is necessary to put this in writing and present it to both bodies for ratification, and it will be effective as of the date of the legislative bodies action, or tonight, February 19th. Administrator Wright noted that actually it will be started as of 8:00 A.M. tomorrow. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 6:22 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk Chairman Ali 23 [300K 63 713