12/15/1983 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

v CITY OF NORTH OLMSTED CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION NORTH OLMST6D, OHIO .ate- * Revisions and Up -date Transfers, L6yyoffs, Reinststemehts- Commision members directed the secretary to specifically follow the Ohio Revised Code wording regarding the rules and regulations for transfer, layoff, and reinstatement procedures for classified personnel. Reductions,Suspensions, dnd Removals- With regard to the appeal process of reductions and suspensions, Mr. Alexander stated that a recent ruling by a federal judge seemed to indicate the employee's right to petition for an appeal hearing for every disciplinary reduction or suspension. Heretofore, the North Olmsted Civil Service Commission has allowed classified employees to submit requests for appeal hearings re arding disciplinary reductions and/or suspensions of three or more days but less than five(5) days. Any reduction and/or suspension of five(5) days or longer is subject to an automatic hearing procedure. In light of the ruling by the Court, Mr. Alexander suggested that classified employees be allowed to request a hearing regarding any reduction and/or suspension.. After review of the facts, the granting of such a request involving such disciplinary action of less than five (5) days. would.be at the discretion of the Commission. By such a rule, Mr.. Alexander also felt that possible harrassment and/or abuse resulting from successive 1 or 2 day reductions and/or suspensions would be eliminated._ Mrs. Bahas pointed out that the new rule could lead to a breakdown of administrative authority if every disciplinary action were a possible subject for an appeal procedure. In the extreme, it could result in the Commission becoming the final administrative authority in dealing with all accountability within the various government departments. Such a rule, if abused would undermine the respect of the departmental authorities, overburden the Commissioners with the reveiw of all disciplinary actions, unreasonably extend the time frame between the 1-nfraction and the disci;linary response. Such a rule if utilized to any great extent would also probably require the scheduling of addi- tional Commission meetings. Commissioner Huffman felt that it was unlikely that such a rule would be abused, since in most cases, if the facts were indisputable the employee would not patition for a hearing. Moreover, an additional safeguard against such abuse was provided by the stipulation that the Commission could deny the request for a hearing unless the disciplinary action involved more than a five(5) day or longer period. Mrs. Bahas was directed to revise that portion of the rule which states: Notwithstanding the foregoin , an employee who is suspended for a period of at least three but not more than five(5) working days may nevertheless submit a statement in writing of his objection to such suspension to the Commission. within ten(10) days of the date on which he is notified of such suspension...to be revised as follows: