HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.g. Secure services of arbitrator re Shawn Bitle grievanceCentral Contra Costa Sanitary District
BOARD OF DIRECTORS ' g fs
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 15, 2012
subject: DIRECT STAFF TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF AN ARBITRATOR IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DISTRICT'S GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE — SHAWN
BITLE GRIEVANCE
Submitted By Initiating Dept. /Div.:
Christopher Ko, Human Resources Administration /Human
Manager Division
REVIEWED AND RECOMMENDED FOR BOARD ACTION:
Gf Y
C. Ko CJR. Musgraves
Resources
James . Kelly,
General Manager
ISSUE: When a grievance has been appealed to the Board level, the Board must
employ a neutral third party to hear the matter and recommend action to the Board in
accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the District and
the CCCSD Employees' Association, Public Employees' Union, Local One, Article III,
Section 2.5.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to secure the services of an arbitrator in accordance
with the District's grievance appeal procedures.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The District and the Union share the cost of the arbitrator and
court reporter for grievances. An estimated cost of these services is $3,000 per day, or
$1,500 per party.
ALTERNATIVES /CONSIDERATIONS: None.
BACKGROUND: Local One has filed a grievance against the District on behalf of
Maintenance Crew Member II Shawn Bitle. In July 2011, Mr. Bitle was informed that he
did not receive a recommendation to take the Personnel Advancement exam for
Maintenance Crew Leader based on the fact that his performance was not completely
satisfactory, and his leaves were determined to be excessive. Particularly, Mr. Bitle had
a high usage of unscheduled leaves over a number of years.
The General Manager appointed Director of Plant Operations, Margaret P. Orr, as the
Hearing Officer. The Step Three Hearing was held on December 7, 2011, and a
continuation meeting was held on January 18, 2012. Local One alleged violation of the
Family Medical Leaves Act (FMLA) and Worker's Compensation. The Union's
proposed remedy is to create a Maintenance Crew Leader position and appoint Mr.
Bitle to the position without further examination.
The District cited Article III, Section 9.4 of the MOU, titled "Recommendation for
Advancement." The recommendation is based upon the employee. supervisor's
C:\ Users\ danderson \AppData \Local\Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \DVCG8C5G \Position Paper Bitle
03- 15- 12.doc
POSITION PAPER
Board Meeting Date: March 15, 2012
Subject DIRECT STAFF TO SECURE THE SERVICES OF AN ARBITRATOR IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE DISTRICT'S GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE - SHAWN BITLE GRIEVANCE
evaluation that the employee's performance is "completely satisfactory in the present
position and the employee qualifies for advancement to the higher position." The
recommendation must also be approved by the Department Director and General
Manager. Mr. Bitle did not receive his supervisor and the Department Director's
approval based on his performance not meeting the "completely satisfactory" criteria.
Furthermore, the Maintenance Crew Leader directs the work of a crew in both a daily
and emergency (call out or standby) setting, and reliable attendance is essential. Mr.
Bitle did not satisfy the attendance requirement for his present position as a
Maintenance Crew Member II.
The District also argued that the proposed remedy to create a Maintenance Crew
Leader position and appoint Mr. Bitle is unfair to the other Maintenance Crew Members
who competed for the position, but were not selected due to a limited number of Crew
Leader openings. It also bypasses the District's selection process as outlined in the
MOU, and would deny other employees opportunities to compete for a promotion.
Ms. Orr concluded that the decision for not recommending Mr. Bitle to take the
Personnel Advancement exam for Maintenance Crew Leader was based on a review of
his leave usage over the past several years, along with comments from past
performance appraisals that clearly stated that Mr. Bitle's leave usage must improve,
Mr. Bitle's continued poor ratings, and Mr. Bitle's inability to improve in this area. The
District used an objective means to determine who would be allowed to advance and
applied it consistently, including rejecting other Maintenance Crew members for similar
reasons. Article III, Section 9.4 of the MOU specified that an employee's performance
must be "completely satisfactory in the present position," and the recommendation for
advancement must be approved by the Department Director and the General Manager.
This matter has been reviewed by the Human Resources Committee at its meeting on
March 8, 2012.
RECOMMENDED BOARD ACTION: Direct staff to secure the services of an arbitrator
in accordance with the District's grievance appeal procedures.
C:\ Users\ danderson \AppData \Local\Microsoft \Windows \Temporary Internet Files \Content.Outlook \DVCG8C5G \Position Paper Bitle
03- 15- 12.doc