The minutes of the May 22nd Civil Service Commission meeting were finally published on the web. It only took 12 business days.
LINK
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5-22-08
Item 7. REVISION TO CIVIL SERVICE RULE 8.7
The General Manager recommends that the Board give 21 days notice of intention to amend Section 8.7 of the Civil Service Rules as follows (additions in red, deletions in blue):
Section 8.7. If work is temporarily interrupted due to a financial emergency as declared by the City or due to if because of inclement weather or other unforeseen reason, work is temporarily interrupted, it is not necessary that layoff seniority order be followed in assigning employees. The interruption of work must be known to be temporary, the appointing authority must act in good faith, and an employee must not be deprived of his/her rights or gain an advantage with respect to his/her employment in the classified civil service.
File No. 52254
COMMISSION ACTION:
(On May 8, 2008, the motion to give 21 days’ notice of intention to amend Rule 8.7 failed by a 2-2 vote.)
Shannon Pascual asked the Board to instruct the Personnel Department to engage in a meet and confer process with the various interested employee organizations. Staff would return with a final recommendation upon completion of the meet and confer process.
Emma Leheny, representing for the Coalition of City Unions, believed the proposed change to Rule 8.7 would eliminate seniority considerations from temporary layoff decisions. She felt a change in the rule would be inconsistent with the provisions of Charter Section 1015, which provides that in all cases, suspension and restoration shall be based upon seniority. She stated that by eliminating seniority from layoff decisions, the proposal would go beyond the provisions of the Charter and would violate its fundamental principles. She asked the Commission to decline to give the City a blank slate on which to unilaterally determine when a financial downturn triggers a provision to eliminate seniority. She further stated that the principle of authority protects employees from potential unfair favoritism, and it protects the employer by providing an objective basis for all layoff decisions. She urged the Commission to vote no on the proposal.
Robert Hunt, General Counsel for SEIU Local 721, did not believe it good policy for the Commission to interject itself into a collective bargaining arena. He believed the underlying issue is whether there is a financial crisis in the City and how that gets resolved, which is clearly the subject of collective bargaining between the City and the various employee organizations. He urged the Commission to not take action and to allow the collective bargaining process to take its due course.
Victor Gordo, representing Local 777 and a member of the Coalition, believed that to do away with seniority would open the door to arbitrary decision making. He asked the Commission not to go forward with the rule change.
Valerie Smith, a city employee in a non-represented class, believed the rule is in direct conflict with the City Charter Section 1015, which provides for temporary layoff and for the restoration of employees. She asked that the rule change clearly identify the duration of the temporary layoff and when a regular layoff, with regard to seniority, would begin.
Christine Metro stated that in years past, Civil Service Rule 8.7 applied to rainy days while the new language refers to a financial emergency.
Roy Stone, President of Librarians Guild Local 2626, strongly urged the Commission to carefully look at the proposed rule change because we currently have a system based on seniority. He asked that the Commission reject the proposed amendment to rule 8.7.
Verdel Flores, Vice President of the Library Guild, supported the position of the Coalition and her fellow speakers.
Seboa Wright believed that the changes to the rule could negatively affect equal employment opportunities.
Carmen Hayes, a 27-year employee on the executive board for AFSCME Local 3090, stated that she would be one of the employees being laid off if the rule changed. She urged the Board not to adopt the proposed rule change.
Cheryl Moore, a 31-year employee representing Local 3090, stated that the rule would hurt employees who have worked for the City for a long time. She urged the Commission not to adopt the rule change because it would negatively impact everyone.
Jose Esparza, Business Representative for IBEW Local 11, agreed with the previous speakers and urged the Commission not to adopt the rule change.
Rose Rodriquez was against adoption of the rule change.
Mark Fink, Business Representative International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501, felt that the proposed rule change is unwise, unwarranted, and it violates the spirit of mutual gains bargaining. The Business Representative International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 defines seniority as the most important principle for workers.
Luis Areda, Business Representative for IBEW Local 11, agreed with the previous speakers and opposed the revisions to Civil Service Rule 8.7.
Cheryl Parisi, Executive Director, Council District 36 and chairperson of the Coalition of Los Angeles City Unions, appeared on behalf of every city worker who will be adversely affected by the proposed rule change. She stated that the rights of merit employment and the seniority rights that protect employment in the case of a layoff are embedded in the City Charter. The unions are not in a position to bargain away the due process rights or seniority rights that every city worker has by virtue of the City Charter, which cannot be changed by a collective bargaining agreement. The Charter addresses issues regarding economic downturns in the City of Los Angeles and sets forth a process whereby seniority rules apply to ensure that the process is objective and fair. Ms. Parisi asked the Commission to not implement the rule change.
Julie Butcher, representing Local 721, stated that the City Charter is prevailing and asked the Commission to reject the attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining process. She stated that the rule change would be an attempt to extract from the workers of the city what has been successfully bargained during the budget process.
Blanca Gomez, Commission Executive Assistant, stated that the proposed rule change undermines the seniority process and would compromise the fair treatment of employees and provide the opportunity for management to play favorites in determining which employees are laid off. It could also open the City for potential valid lawsuits.
Angel Calvo, Business Representative for Engineers and Architect Association, was in agreement with the comments made and asked the Commission not to take any action on the item.
Commissioner Salvati inquired as to whether changing the rule would violate the City Charter. City Attorney, Zna Houston, stated that on the face of the Charter, there is interpretation that can be made that to modify this rule would not be in violation of the Charter, however, it would be hard to predict what the outcome would be should the modification of the rule or the use of the rule be challenged in a court of law.
Commissioner Perez asked if there was anything in the State Code that states that a temporary layoff, a furlough, is the same as a layoff. Zna Houston replied that the manner in which State agencies define furlough and layoff are the same and she is not aware of any State law that regulates the terminology.
Commissioner Perez interpreted Charter Section 1015(a) as giving the City the right to suspend or layoff workers due to a lack of funds, it was therefore his opinion that the City does not need a change in Rule 8.7 in order to meet, confer, and come to a conclusion in terms of the City’s financial crisis. Zna Houston responded that Civil Service Rule 8.7 is a totally different track and a totally different issue that is not tied to or in any way connected with the overall meet and confer process or collective bargaining process of the City.
Commissioner Perez stated that the most important principle in the civil service is the principle of seniority. He stated that in his reading of Charter Section 1015(a), in all cases suspension and restoration should be based upon seniority and the concept of seniority, which is fundamental to civil service and is embedded in the City Charter. He believed that if people want to change the concepts of seniority that are embedded in the Charter of the City of Los Angeles, they should go through the political process to change that and not ask the Board of Civil Service Commissioners to make the hard political decision. He did not believe that the employees of the City of Los Angeles should be placed in a position of having to bargain away their right of seniority and would not support giving 21 days notice of intention to change the rule.
Shannon Pascual stated that the 23 million dollar deficit in the City budget could result in departments having to request a long-term layoff in order to meet their obligations. The initial intent of Rule 8.7 was not to have a situation where people would be reassigned but to deal specifically with a situation where a person would be unpaid but returned to his or her job without any loss of benefits, loss of ability to accrue seniority, sick time, or promote within the City. It was intended to deal specifically with a situation where the City could not pay the employee.
Commissioner McClelland believed the language of Rule 8.7 as it relates to adding a new basis for assigning employees, needs scrutiny, thought, specificity and care, to ensure that the rule is not misused and the Charter or other laws are not violated. She supported giving 21 days notice to trigger a bilateral conversation in a collective bargaining or meet and confer situation.
21 DAYS NOTICE OF INTENT GIVEN on motion of Commissioner McClelland, seconded by Commissioner de los Reyes, and carried by a 4-1 vote. (Nay: Perez)
Appearances: Shannon Pascual, Personnel Department
________________________________________
Pulling his puppet strings on the Civil Service Commission, Mayor Tony Villar's dismantling of your civil service rights and politicization of your jobs continues, turning City Hall into his personal "house of cards".
LINK
UNFINISHED BUSINESS 5-22-08
Item 7. REVISION TO CIVIL SERVICE RULE 8.7
The General Manager recommends that the Board give 21 days notice of intention to amend Section 8.7 of the Civil Service Rules as follows (additions in red, deletions in blue):
Section 8.7. If work is temporarily interrupted due to a financial emergency as declared by the City or due to if because of inclement weather or other unforeseen reason, work is temporarily interrupted, it is not necessary that layoff seniority order be followed in assigning employees. The interruption of work must be known to be temporary, the appointing authority must act in good faith, and an employee must not be deprived of his/her rights or gain an advantage with respect to his/her employment in the classified civil service.
File No. 52254
COMMISSION ACTION:
(On May 8, 2008, the motion to give 21 days’ notice of intention to amend Rule 8.7 failed by a 2-2 vote.)
Shannon Pascual asked the Board to instruct the Personnel Department to engage in a meet and confer process with the various interested employee organizations. Staff would return with a final recommendation upon completion of the meet and confer process.
Emma Leheny, representing for the Coalition of City Unions, believed the proposed change to Rule 8.7 would eliminate seniority considerations from temporary layoff decisions. She felt a change in the rule would be inconsistent with the provisions of Charter Section 1015, which provides that in all cases, suspension and restoration shall be based upon seniority. She stated that by eliminating seniority from layoff decisions, the proposal would go beyond the provisions of the Charter and would violate its fundamental principles. She asked the Commission to decline to give the City a blank slate on which to unilaterally determine when a financial downturn triggers a provision to eliminate seniority. She further stated that the principle of authority protects employees from potential unfair favoritism, and it protects the employer by providing an objective basis for all layoff decisions. She urged the Commission to vote no on the proposal.
Robert Hunt, General Counsel for SEIU Local 721, did not believe it good policy for the Commission to interject itself into a collective bargaining arena. He believed the underlying issue is whether there is a financial crisis in the City and how that gets resolved, which is clearly the subject of collective bargaining between the City and the various employee organizations. He urged the Commission to not take action and to allow the collective bargaining process to take its due course.
Victor Gordo, representing Local 777 and a member of the Coalition, believed that to do away with seniority would open the door to arbitrary decision making. He asked the Commission not to go forward with the rule change.
Valerie Smith, a city employee in a non-represented class, believed the rule is in direct conflict with the City Charter Section 1015, which provides for temporary layoff and for the restoration of employees. She asked that the rule change clearly identify the duration of the temporary layoff and when a regular layoff, with regard to seniority, would begin.
Christine Metro stated that in years past, Civil Service Rule 8.7 applied to rainy days while the new language refers to a financial emergency.
Roy Stone, President of Librarians Guild Local 2626, strongly urged the Commission to carefully look at the proposed rule change because we currently have a system based on seniority. He asked that the Commission reject the proposed amendment to rule 8.7.
Verdel Flores, Vice President of the Library Guild, supported the position of the Coalition and her fellow speakers.
Seboa Wright believed that the changes to the rule could negatively affect equal employment opportunities.
Carmen Hayes, a 27-year employee on the executive board for AFSCME Local 3090, stated that she would be one of the employees being laid off if the rule changed. She urged the Board not to adopt the proposed rule change.
Cheryl Moore, a 31-year employee representing Local 3090, stated that the rule would hurt employees who have worked for the City for a long time. She urged the Commission not to adopt the rule change because it would negatively impact everyone.
Jose Esparza, Business Representative for IBEW Local 11, agreed with the previous speakers and urged the Commission not to adopt the rule change.
Rose Rodriquez was against adoption of the rule change.
Mark Fink, Business Representative International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501, felt that the proposed rule change is unwise, unwarranted, and it violates the spirit of mutual gains bargaining. The Business Representative International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 501 defines seniority as the most important principle for workers.
Luis Areda, Business Representative for IBEW Local 11, agreed with the previous speakers and opposed the revisions to Civil Service Rule 8.7.
Cheryl Parisi, Executive Director, Council District 36 and chairperson of the Coalition of Los Angeles City Unions, appeared on behalf of every city worker who will be adversely affected by the proposed rule change. She stated that the rights of merit employment and the seniority rights that protect employment in the case of a layoff are embedded in the City Charter. The unions are not in a position to bargain away the due process rights or seniority rights that every city worker has by virtue of the City Charter, which cannot be changed by a collective bargaining agreement. The Charter addresses issues regarding economic downturns in the City of Los Angeles and sets forth a process whereby seniority rules apply to ensure that the process is objective and fair. Ms. Parisi asked the Commission to not implement the rule change.
Julie Butcher, representing Local 721, stated that the City Charter is prevailing and asked the Commission to reject the attempt to circumvent the collective bargaining process. She stated that the rule change would be an attempt to extract from the workers of the city what has been successfully bargained during the budget process.
Blanca Gomez, Commission Executive Assistant, stated that the proposed rule change undermines the seniority process and would compromise the fair treatment of employees and provide the opportunity for management to play favorites in determining which employees are laid off. It could also open the City for potential valid lawsuits.
Angel Calvo, Business Representative for Engineers and Architect Association, was in agreement with the comments made and asked the Commission not to take any action on the item.
Commissioner Salvati inquired as to whether changing the rule would violate the City Charter. City Attorney, Zna Houston, stated that on the face of the Charter, there is interpretation that can be made that to modify this rule would not be in violation of the Charter, however, it would be hard to predict what the outcome would be should the modification of the rule or the use of the rule be challenged in a court of law.
Commissioner Perez asked if there was anything in the State Code that states that a temporary layoff, a furlough, is the same as a layoff. Zna Houston replied that the manner in which State agencies define furlough and layoff are the same and she is not aware of any State law that regulates the terminology.
Commissioner Perez interpreted Charter Section 1015(a) as giving the City the right to suspend or layoff workers due to a lack of funds, it was therefore his opinion that the City does not need a change in Rule 8.7 in order to meet, confer, and come to a conclusion in terms of the City’s financial crisis. Zna Houston responded that Civil Service Rule 8.7 is a totally different track and a totally different issue that is not tied to or in any way connected with the overall meet and confer process or collective bargaining process of the City.
Commissioner Perez stated that the most important principle in the civil service is the principle of seniority. He stated that in his reading of Charter Section 1015(a), in all cases suspension and restoration should be based upon seniority and the concept of seniority, which is fundamental to civil service and is embedded in the City Charter. He believed that if people want to change the concepts of seniority that are embedded in the Charter of the City of Los Angeles, they should go through the political process to change that and not ask the Board of Civil Service Commissioners to make the hard political decision. He did not believe that the employees of the City of Los Angeles should be placed in a position of having to bargain away their right of seniority and would not support giving 21 days notice of intention to change the rule.
Shannon Pascual stated that the 23 million dollar deficit in the City budget could result in departments having to request a long-term layoff in order to meet their obligations. The initial intent of Rule 8.7 was not to have a situation where people would be reassigned but to deal specifically with a situation where a person would be unpaid but returned to his or her job without any loss of benefits, loss of ability to accrue seniority, sick time, or promote within the City. It was intended to deal specifically with a situation where the City could not pay the employee.
Commissioner McClelland believed the language of Rule 8.7 as it relates to adding a new basis for assigning employees, needs scrutiny, thought, specificity and care, to ensure that the rule is not misused and the Charter or other laws are not violated. She supported giving 21 days notice to trigger a bilateral conversation in a collective bargaining or meet and confer situation.
21 DAYS NOTICE OF INTENT GIVEN on motion of Commissioner McClelland, seconded by Commissioner de los Reyes, and carried by a 4-1 vote. (Nay: Perez)
Appearances: Shannon Pascual, Personnel Department
________________________________________
Pulling his puppet strings on the Civil Service Commission, Mayor Tony Villar's dismantling of your civil service rights and politicization of your jobs continues, turning City Hall into his personal "house of cards".
1 comment:
A city labor relations attorney admits what is likely to happen if Tony V continues to pursue this:
"City Attorney, Zna Houston, stated that on the face of the Charter, there is interpretation that can be made that to modify this rule would not be in violation of the Charter, however, it would be hard to predict what the outcome would be should the modification of the rule or the use of the rule be challenged in a court of law."
They'd better be counting on going to court if Tony V continues to pursue that mandatory furlough scheme. On the radio this morning there were reports that LAUSD is planning mandatory furloughs for their budget woes, too. Som of the outcomes haven't been in the City Attorney's favor when he pursued cases that Little Tony V (who flunked the bar exam FOUR TIMES) ordered to be filed.
Post a Comment