11/13/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

once had. Further lay out that more and more of the actions that were taking place are no longer necessary. There are approximately 250 work days in a year and there are forty-seven (47) purchase orders processed every month that is now computerized; there are several requisitions processed all year round that averages out to be approximately four (4) per day which is all computerized. That is hardly enough work to sustain a full time secretary. Further enhancements are in the process with the phone system and the plant did not have a secretary in the summer and that did not cause a problem. There is a new plant manager that is capable to handle matters without a secretary. ATS are experts and what the administration is doing is moving the plant forward in a logical and efficient way. Mr. Ubaldi inquired as to the anecdotes of the phone calls not being answered, what is being done in the absence of the secretary. Mr. Limpert indicated that with the new phone system in place, there is now a light that indicates there is a voice mail; there is a paging system for employees that indicate they have a voice mail. The secretary works thirty-five (3 5) hours a week and back up problems happen whenever. Ms. Agresta had no questions. Mr. Ubaldi will conclude this hearing and a deliberation will follow shortly. Hearing on Appeal, to Commission, of Decision to Lay Off Classified Secretary II Position at the North Olmsted Building Department Due to Displacement Per Collective Bargaining Agreement Mr. Ubaldi called to order the hearing on the appeal to the Commission of the decision to lay off the classified Secretary II position at the North Olmsted Building Department due to displacement per the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The respective parties assumed are the appointing authority, the North Olmsted Department of Public Service and the applicant would be Ms. Mary Ramirez, Secretary II. Ms. Farver indicated that she could address the Commission if it is the Commission's desire. Ms. Ramirez was not displaced as a direct result of lay off and was not directly laid off. Ms. Agresta exercised her right in the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Ms. Cheryl Farver, the Human Resources Director for the City of North Olmsted, approached the podium and was sworn in. Ms. Ramirez was employed in the Building Department of the City of North Olmsted and is the least senior employee. When Ms. Agresta's lay off notice was served she had the option of "bumping" any less senior employee within the classification which would be the Secretary 11 classification and which would include the switchboard operator. Ms. Agresta selected to "bump" the less senior employee, which is Ms. Ramirez. So consequently, Ms. Ramirez is displaced because she is the least senior employee. Ms. Ramirez is officially on lay off status. She does have a grievance pending. She had a Step 2 grievance with the previous Safety Director which was denied. The employee does not have any questions at this time. Ms. Ramirez approached the podium and was sworn in. Ms. Ramirez understands that she had been displaced but needed further clarification. She did receive a letter indicating she was laid off officially October 26, 2007 but inquired when she was laid off the Civil Service Rules and Regulations handbook states that when there is a lay off, that part time, seasonal, temporary, intermittent and full time employees would be displaced before her. Ms. Ramirez requested documentation of who is part time, seasonal, temporary, and intermittent under Civil Service put no one could provide that information to her. She had obtained a list of part time employees that she was trying to cross reference with job titles that did not include names. Ms. Ramirez did receive a list of Civil Service classifications, by positions, that indicated who was classified and unclassified and was trying to figure out who would be laid off before her. Ms. Ramirez provided to the Commission her brief with a list of eight (8) employees and their hire dates and indicated that they are still on probation when her lay off occurred. Mr. Hohmann inquired if Ms. Ramirez is taking into account that her list of eight (8) employees has all taken Civil Service tests and there were specific qualifications for those jobs. These employees were appointed from a list and have special training. Mr. Hohmann also inquired if Ms. Ramirez was suggesting that she would replace one of those employees and she indicated that she did not say that she could but these employees are still in the probationary period. Mr. Ubaldi indicated that under Rule XI,