11/13/2007 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Section 4, the lay off should occur within the same classification of position. Ms. Ramirez indicated the list she had received only listed the positions that were classified or unclassified. Mr. Ubaldi indicated that classified or unclassified refer to employees who are under the Civil Service protection and who take Civil Service tests for employment and those who are otherwise hired and fired outside that. Classification is the general use of the term where your classification would be clerical and as understood from the original memo Ms. Agresta would have the opportunity to displace Secretary II or Receptionist because they would fall in the same classification. As for the temporary and provisional employees, that are one step ahead of the problem here which is none of these positions listed, the paramedic or five (5) police officers are within the relevant classification. Ms. Ramirez received a memo from the Civil Service Secretary including a list for all full time employees' classifications and a roster of all full time employees. Mr. Hohmann inquired if there was not a response from the Human Resources Director or another employee from the city to your request. Ms. Ramirez indicated the memo stated that they are not required to create new documentations; therefore, she had to cross reference the lists and did not know who was in Civil Service and who was not. In the Building Department there was a Property Maintenance Inspector that was seasonal, an Electrical Inspector that is temporary or part time, a back up plumber, and a temporary Building Inspector. Ms. Ramirez is unsure if these employees are under Civil Service. Ms. Ramirez inquired if those employees were under Civil Service and why weren't they laid off before her. Mr. Hohmann inquired if Ms. Ramirez is suggesting that she would be qualified to fill any one of those positions. Ms. Ramirez indicated that there has been some confusion with this process but she could be the property maintenance inspector. Mr. Ubaldi indicated that classified and unclassified are different from classification. The subject that is being talked about is certain employees in a classification, an order or a category. The point is none of these other positions are relevant and the only position that is relevant in Ms. Agresta's decision to displace would be those over whom she has seniority who has the same basic job, a Secretary II or the Receptionist, would be the two (2) positions she can "bump". Mr. Ubaldi inquired if the employer had any questions. Ms. Farver inquired to Ms. Ramirez if her premise was that any probationary employee throughout the city that is classified by the Civil Service should be laid off before she is. Ms. Ramirez indicated "yes". Ms. Farver indicated under Section 5, page 21, the displacement procedure reads "A laid off employee has the right to displace an employee with less seniority in the classification from which the employee was laid off or at a lower or equivalent classification in the following order within in the classification from which the employee was laid off; from within a classification series from which the employee was laid off'. Ms. Ramirez indicated that after she reviewed the procedure manual she wrote to the secretary of the Civil Service Commission and ask her specifically what classification are pertaining to. All she received was a list of full time employees including their date of hire and a list of job positions that were classified and unclassified. Ms. Farver inquired as to what portion of this manual prompted this request. Ms. Ramirez indicated Section 4 b within a Civil Service classification employees shall be laid off in the following order: Temporary, Intermittent, Part-time, Seasonal, Full-time. The employer had a chance to rebuttal. Ms. Farver indicated that Ms. Ramirez premise is false that only employees that are temporary, provisional or part-time in that classification or job description of secretary would apply. Ms. Ramirez is the least senior in her employee group which includes Secretary II and Receptionist. The employee did not have any questions. Mr. Ubaldi concluded this hearing. A discussion commenced amongst the Civil Service Commissioners. Mr. Hohmann indicated that the city has made a case for the elimination of the Secretary II position on the appeal for Sandie Agresta. In his opinion regarding case 2 the city has made a case for the "bumping" of Mary Ramirez. Both appeals are denied. Mr. Ubaldi agreed on both points and believes that the city has made a persuasive case for lack of work and on the second hearing is a misunderstanding of language and that the city instructed the employee to follow language accordingly and there was no