Labor Representative Cases, Second Quarter of 2010
Written Reprimand Removed from MEA Employee’s File
MEA Senior Labor Relations Representative Kelly Cruz represented a 22 year City employee who was facing serious discipline due to an alleged violation of Administrative Regulation 90.62 – Email and Internet Usage. After the supposed violation took place, the member’s Deputy Director and Department Director orally counseled the employee on his lack of judgment pertaining to the situation.
Following the counseling, the employee was given Advance Notice of Rights to Representation for a Fact Finding. Kelly attended the meeting with the member and two program managers from the department. Several weeks after the Fact Finding investigation was concluded, the employee was presented with a written reprimand for the alleged Administrative Regulation violation.
However, Kelly demonstrated to the City’s Labor Relations Office that the oral counseling, followed by a written reprimand violated Article 10, Section L of MEA’s MOU which states, “The City agrees that if an employee is disciplined for a specific act, that said discipline shall be final for the particular act once the appeal process is complete.”
Clearly the written reprimand violated the duplication of discipline detailed in MEA’s MOU Article 10. Due to Kelly’s insight and extensive knowledge of MEA’s MOU, the written reprimand was permanently removed from the member’s file.
MEA Staff Report
REDUCTION IN FORCE:
On February 4, 2010, the Personnel Department issued Reduction in Force memos to departments throughout the City. At that time, there were 168 employees who were impacted either as a result of their position being eliminated, or a result of being bumped by an employee who was being cut but had bumping rights.
MEA reps spent the remaining weeks of February meeting with employees and their assigned Personnel Analysts and performed all needed follow up work. As you know, most of the impacted employees were from the Police Department (a total of 105 P.D. employees were impacted).
Names were added and removed during the fluid process as situations and circumstances changed. Nineteen employees who were identified as being impacted during the process were later listed by Personnel as “not impacted.”
The final tabulation provided to MEA by the Personnel Department is as follows:
152 employees were impacted
34 employees remained in their classification
2 employees changed classification without a
pay cut (both classes were at same pay rate)
2 employees remained in their classification
but status changed from permanent to hourly
84 employees were demoted
7 employees retired
13 employees chose layoff
10 employees had layoff imposed
Layoffs were effective on February 26, 2010
Family-School Partnership Act Approval
MEA Labor Relations Representative Brian Balla assisted a member who was denied a request to temporarily flex her schedule in order to participate in her child’s after school activity.
According to California Labor Code, Section 230.8, “Family-School Partnership Act,” an employer cannot fire or discriminate against an employee for participating in such activities, provided the employee, prior to taking the time off, gives reasonable notice to the employer.
Brian informed the member of her rights, provided her a copy of the California Family-School Partnership Act and contacted her supervisor to discuss the temporary flexible schedule request.
Brian talked to the MEA employee’s supervisor to provide additional information on employees’ rights enumerated in the Family-School Partnership Act. A few days later, both the employee and Brian were informed that the supervisor had approved the temporary flex schedule.