Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1987-05-26 Minutes MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION MAY 26, 1987 AT 7:00 P.M. THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY HALL 7301 NE LOOP 820 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Pederson called the meeting to order at 7:25 P.M. 2. ROLL CALL: Members Present: George Pederson, Chairman Lyle Welch, Commiasioner Bob Roark, Commissioner Members Absent: Jeff Newsom, Commissioner Jack Frisque, Commissioner Others Present: Ron McKinney, Civil Service Secretary Rex McEntire, City Attorney Jimmy Cates, Street Superintendent Conrad Spangler, Asst. Street Superintendent Craig A. Herndon, Appellant John Stanford, Attorney for Appellant John P. Wright, Employee/Witness Jill Korth, Personnel Secretary Ron Fields, Firefighter 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF The minutes were not approved at this time because MAY 13, 1987: there was only one commissioner present who had attended the May 13, 1987 meeting. 4. APPEAL HEARING CS-87-02 Chairman Pederson called Appeal Hearing CS-87-02 to FOR APPEALLANT CRAIG A. order. He asked if Craig Herndon was present and if HERNDON: he was represented by counsel. Mr. Herndon was present and represented by John Stanford. The Chairman then asked if Jimmy Cates was present and represented by counsel. Mr. Cates was present and represented Rex McEntire. Commissioner Welch read the grounds for adverse action taken by Mr. Cates indefinitely suspending Mr. Herndon on April 23, 1987. Commissioner Roark then read the appeal response of the adverse action from Mr. Herndon. The Chairman asked Mr. Herndon if he had been furnished with a copy of the department head's statement. Mr. Herndon said yes. Page 2 CS-87-02 • • Craig A. Herndon The Chairman then proceeded by swearing in the witnesses. Witnesses sworn in were: Craig Herndon, Jimmy Cates, Conrad Spangler, and John P. Wright. The Chairman asked both parties if they wished to invoke the "Rule". Attorney John Stanford wished to invoke the "Rule". All witnesses left the room except Jimmy Cates. The Chairman asked Mr. Stanford to proceed. Mr. Stanford began by calling Mr. Herndon. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if he was ever reprimanded. Mr. Herndon said yes. He explained that on his grievance form he said he had never been reprimanded, but that was not correct. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if he was reprimanded for dis-orderly conduct on June 16, 1987. Mr. Herndon said yes. He stated on June 16, 1987 he was flagging for the county and a citizen did not follow his instructions and went through a barricade. He stated that he did not throw the flag at the vehicle, he said he might have hit the wood on the back on the vehicle, but he never struck the vehicle. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if he was reprima.nded on November 11, 1986 for insubordination. Mr. Herndon said yes. Mr. Aerndon stated that on November 11, 1986 he did not clean out the city vehicle because he had an agreement with another employee that if he would put up the tools the other employee would clean out the truck. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon when he was employed by the city. Mr. Herndon said March 18, 1985. Mr. Stanford then asked if Mr. Herndon had a drivers license prior to the commerical license mentioned earlier. Mr. Herndon said yes, he had a operator's license. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if it was correct that he did not receive a commercial license until after he received a notice on April 7, 1987 requesting he obtain a commercial license. Mr. Herndon said that was correct. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if he had been loafing on the ~ob. Mr. Herndon said he was not loafing, but he had been moving slow because his foot swells, he was trying to take it easy. Mr. Stanford asked if Mr. Herndon had been off work because of an on the ~ob in~ury. Mr. Herndon said yes. Mr. Stanford asked the date of his in~ury. Mr. Herndon said he was in~ured on January 8, 1987 and that he returned to work on April 6, 1987. The witness was passed. Page 3 CS-87-02 ~ ' Craig A. Herndon Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Herndon if he recalled being written up and counseled on May 13, 1987 for mis- handling city property, damaging weedeaters. Mr. Herndon said he vaguely remembered. Mr. McEntire also asked Mr. Herndon if on July 16, 1986 he was suspended without pay for (1) day for dis-orderly conduct for supposedly throwing a flag at a citizen's car. Mr. Herndon said he was, but that he did not throw the flag. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Herndon if on July 24, 1986 he was written up with no suspension for agruing with his crew leader. Mr. Herndon said he vaguely remembered. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Herndon if it was correct that on September 9, 1986 he received (2) days off for not performing his ~ob duties. Mr. Herndon was then asked if on November 11, 1987 he received (4) days off for not carrying out his ~ob duties, which was to clean out a city truck. Mr. Herndon said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Herndon if in each of these instances he was either counseled verbally or in writing, telling him not to do these things. Mr. Herndon said yes. Mr. Herndon was then asked if his ~ob description called for him to be a truck driver and if he was aware that in order to drive a truck you must have a commercial license. Mr. Herndon said yes to both questions. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Herndon if it was correct that on his last evaluation, dated December 1986, he had an overall rating of a(2) which is below expections. Mr. Herndon said yes. Mr. Herndon was then asked if he had signed this evaluation and if the evaluation had been reviewed with him. Mr. Herndon said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Herndon if had had any problems with any of the other employees complaining about his performance or him not doing his ~ob. Mr. Herndon said no. Mr. McEntire then passed the witness. Mr. Stanford then presented to the Commission a letter from Rodger N. Line, City Manager, dated April 1, 1987 and also a copy of Mr. Herndon's commercial license. Mr. Stanford showed Mr. Herndon the April 1, 1987 letter and asked him to ~ustify this letter. Mr. Herndon stated it was for good ~ob performance for a (1) year probationary period, and that he had achieved permanent status with the city. , Page 4 CS=87-02 . ° Craig A. Herndon Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if his work performance had changed since receiving that letter Mr. Herndon said it had a little, he said he may have slacked off some but he tried to do the best he could. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Herndon if he had more difficulty performing his duties after his injury. Mr. Herndon said yes, his foot would swell and he had to slow down to keep the swelling off his ankle so he could walk. Mr. Stanford had no more questions. Mr. McEntire stated that the letter, dated April 1, 1987, is a form letter which is sent to every employee after one year af service. There were no further questions for Mr. Herndon, he was dismissed. Mr. McEntire called John Wright, MW III-lead man. Mr. Wright was asked if Mr. Herndon was on his crew up until he was suspended. Mr. Wright said yes. Mr. Wright was asked that if on April 22, 1987 he reported to Mr. Cates some problems he was having with Mr. Herndon. Mr. Wright said yes. He stated that on that date Mr. Herndon was standing around not perfo~ning his duties, he said he talked to Mr. Herndon about this and said Mr. Herndon got mad and ~ust moped around the rest of the day. Mr. McEntire asked if Mr. Wright was getting complaints from other employees about Mr. Herndon's performance. Mr. Wright said yes, several employees came to him and said Mr. Herndon was not pulling his load. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he reported this to Mr. Cates. Mr. Wright said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he knew what type of license Mr. Herndon had before being requested to obtain a commercial license. Mr. Wright said Mr. Herndon had a operator's license - automatic transmission only. Mr. Wright was then asked what type of restriction Mr. Herndon's commercial license had. Mr. Wright said the co~ercial license had a restriction that there must be a licensed driver with him at all times. Mr. McEntire asked if Mr. Wright was able to provide Mr. Herndon a licensed driver every time he needed to drive a truck. Mr. Wright said no, the job description requires an employee to be able to drive at all times, with or without someone. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he had been involved in any of the other problems Mr. Herndon had during May through November of 1986 in connection with any other warnings he had gotten concerning his conduct , Page 5 CS-87-02 . • Craig A. Herndon or performance. Mr. Wright said yes, all of those incidents were brought up by him to Mr. Cates. Mr. McEntire asked if Mr. Wright witnessed any of the incidents. Mr. Wright said yes. He explained the incident when Mr. Herndon was not following instruc- tions. Mr. Wright stated that Mr. Herndvn was not taking proper care of the weedeater after being corrected several times. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he had anything to do with the incident where Mr. Herndon threw a flag at a citizen's vehicle. Mr. Wright said no. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he had been involved in November when Mr. Herndon was written up for failing to clean out a city truck, Mr. Wright said yes. He stated that he told Mr. Herndon to go and clean out the truck, and when he went out to check the truck it had not been cleaned. Mr. Wright said when he asked Mr. Herndon why he did not clean out the truck, Mr. Herndon said he did not hear him or did not understand him. Mr. Wright said he told Mr. Herndon twice to clean the truck. Mr. McEntire asked if Mr. Herndon told him someone else was going to clean the truck. Mr. Wright said he didn't remember Mr. Herndon saying that to him. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he had over a period of time talked and counseled with Mr. Herndon to do a better ~ob. Mr. Wright said yes because he knew Mr. Herndon was capable of doing a better job. He said he felt Mr. Herndon got the attitude to ~ust slow down and let someone else do the work for him. Mr. Wright said he told Mr. Herndon to pick up speed and pull his load. Mr. McEnCire asked if Mr. Herndon had been pulling his Ioad since last September. Mr. Wright said no. Mr. McEntire passed the witness. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Wright to explain his position, ~ob level. Mr. Wright stated he was a Maintenance Worker III, lead man, and his ~ob function was to make sure the ~ob gets done the best way he knows how and as quickly as possible. Also to make sure a11 employees are cooperating to do the best of their ability. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Wright if he was hired in at that position. Mr. Wright said no, he was hired in as a MW I and worked himself up. Mr. Stanford then asked Mr. Wright when he became a lead man. Mr. Wright said he was employed October 29, 1984 and became a lead man within about a year and a half of that date. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Wright if, back in Ma.y, Mr. Herndon was improperly starting the weedeaters. , Page 6 CS-87-02 ~ ~ Craig A. Herndon Mr. Wright stated that the rule on starting the weedeaters is to lay it on the ground and start it. He said he had to constantly remind the employees to do this. Mr. Stanford asked if all the employees improperly started the weedearters. Mr. Wright said occasionally, but that he had to tell Mr. Herndon several times not to do it. Mr. Stanford questioned Mr. Wright about the cleaning of the city vehicle. He asked Mr. Wright if he had any recollection of Mr. Herndon telling him that another employee was going to clean the truck and he was going to put up the tools. Mr. Wright said he did not recall hearing this. Mr. Wright said the only thing he remembered was that Mr. Aerndon said he did not understand or hear what he was told. Mr. Wright could not say whether or not Mr. Herndon had told him he and another employee had divided the duties. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Wright if it was common for employees to go for breaks and to get a drink when they are working outside. Mr. Wright said yes it is, but (5) minutes is plenty of time to get a drink and take a breather. Mr. Stanford asked if he had ever timed Mr. Herndon while he was taking a break. Mr. Wright said yes, several different occasions. Mr. Stanford passed the witness. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Wright if he in fact told Mr. Herndon to clean the truck. Mr. Wright said yes, three times. Mr. McEntire asked if the truck was cleaned out. Mr. Wright said no. . Chairman Pederson asked Mr. Wright if cleaning out Che truck and putting up the tools was one job. Mr. Wright said no, cleaning out the truck is some- thing different from puCting up the tools. He stated Chat each employee knows that. Chairman Pederson asked Mr. Wright if the employees had other set break times besides lunch. Mr. Wright said yes, two fifteen minute breaks, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Mr. Stanford asked if at the end of the day it`s understood that employees put up the tools. Mr. Wright said yes. Mr. Stanford then asked if it was uncommon for employees to share duties. Mr. Wright said yes. With no further questions for Mr. Wright, he was dismissed. Mr. McEntire called Jimmy Cates, Street Superin- tendent. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Cates if he was tihe one who took disciplinary action against , Page 7 CS-87-02 ' Craig A. Herndon Mr. Herndon. Mr. Cates said yes. Mr. McEntire then asked if he had counseled Mr. Herndon in the past on his poor job performance. Mr. Cates said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Cates if he was having a problem in the department as a result of Mr. Herndon's poor performance. Mr. Cates said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Cate if he felt that Mr. Herndon's poor performance was grounds for indefinite suspension. Mr. Cates said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Cates if he felt that Mr. Herndon had plenty of opportunity to shape up and improve his performance. Mr. Cates said yes. Mr. McEntire asked Mr. Cates if he had enough employees with a commercial license to provide Mr, Herndon with someone every time he needed to drive a truck. Mr. Cates said no. He stated that in Mr. Herndon's job description each employee must be able to work alone which includes driving a city truck. Mr. McEntire passed the witness. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Cates if Mr. Herndon had received a commercia~ license. Mr. Cates said yes, with a restriction. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Cates if Mr. Herndon had been working in his department for (2) years without a commercial license. Mr. Cates explained thaC when he became supervisor Mr. Herndon had already been employed about a year. He continued to say that after he became supervisor he reviewed Mr. Herndon's ~ob description and found the requirement for a commercial license which Mr. Herndon did not have. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Cates if Mr. Herndon's job performa.nce changed dramatically after Mr. Wright became the crew leader. Mr. Cates said no. He stated that Mr. Wright had worked on that crew almost up until he was ma.de crew leader. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Cates if Mr. Wright was the only one to complain to him about Mr. Herndon's performance. Mr. Cates said no. He stated that other members of the crew had complained. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Cates if he looked up the xequirement for a commercial license because he wanted to get rid of Mr. Herndan. Mr. Cates said no. Mr. Standford passed the witness. Commissioner Welch asked Mr. Cates if Mr. Herndon lost his temper very often while working as reported on July 16, 1986. Mr. Cates said yes. . . Page 8 CS-87-02 - " Craig A. Herndon Commissioner Welch asked Mr. Cates about the letter dated September 19, 1986 stating that Mr. Herndon was standing around for about 10-15 minutes not working. Mr. Cates explained that on that date he was watching the employees using weed-eaters in a ditch and noticed Mr. Herndon standing in the same place for 10-15 minutes not working. Cha~rman Pederson asked Mr. Cates what the normal procedure was if an employee is out flagging and a citizen does not obey the flags. Mr. Cates stated that the employee should ~ust let the citizen pass and then call the police department. He said all employees are told never to verbally or physically abuse a citizen. Mr. Stanford asked Mr. Cates if after the incident with the flagging, did he ever receive any more calls or complaints about Mr. Herndon's temper. Mr. Cates said no because Mr. Herndon was not put in another situation like that. There were no further questions for Mr. Cates, he was dismissed. Both parties wished to rest and close. Chairman Pederson asked Mr. Herndon if the restriction on his license was only temporary. Mr. Herndon explained that when he went down to get his commercial license he hadn't driven since he had surgery on his foot so his license had a restriction. Mr. Herndon then stated that he planned to go back and get the restriction taken off after he got use to using the clutch on the truck. Chairman Pederson asked Mr. Hermion if he gave instructions to another crew member to clean out the city truck while he put up the tools. Mr. Herndon said yes. Chairman Pederson asked Mr. Herndon if it was customa.ry for one crew member to issue instructions to another crew member. Mr. Herndon said that the lead man can tell someone to do something, and then that person can ask someone to help him or do it for him, as long as they are on the same crew. Chairman Pederson then asked if Mr. Stanford would like to suamiarize. Mr. Stanford stated that Mr. Herndon had been employed by the city for two years and that his first performa.nce problem occurred on May 13, 1986. Mr. Herndon was then in~ured on-the-3ob January 8, 1987 and off until April 6, 1987. When Mr. Herndon returned on April 6, 1987 he was then given notice that he needed to obtain a commercial license. Mr. Herndon did get the commercial license, although Page 9 CS-87-02 ~ ' Craig A. Herndon he had worked (2) prior years without a cou?mercial license and which the city never said anything about it until he had returned from his injury. Mr. Stanford had no more comments. Chairman Pederson then asked if Mr. McEntire would like to suum?arize. Mr. McEntire stated that Mr. Herndon was reprimanded on several occasions for his poor performance and warned in each instance to improve his performance. He stated that Mr. Herndon could not completely perform his job without the proper drivers license. Mr. McEntire continued by saying that because of these problems the crew can not properly function. Mr. McEntire explained the importance of having a three man crew in which all crew members are capable of performing Che required duties and who all meet the requirements of the position they hold. Mr. McEntire had no further comments. With no further testimony from either party the Chairman called a recess to deliberate their decision. The Chairman called the hearing back to order and asked for a motion. Commissioner Roark made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Welch that the action of indefinite suspension by the department head be affirmed and approved. Motion carried unanimously. The Chairman stated that a recess would be called and the Commission's decision would be prepared in writing. The Chairman then advised Mr. Herndon that he had (10) days to appeal this decision of the Commission to district court in Tarrant County if he so desired. The Chairman called a short recess. The Chairman called the meeting back to order. 6. CONSIDERATION AND Chairman Pederson briefly went over the RECOMMENDATION OF recommendations discussed at the May 4, 1987 meeting. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FOR These recommendations were as follows: (1) upgrade 1987-gg employee's current retirement contributions from 5Z to 7q and/or upgrade the city's contribution to (2 to 1) ratio; (2) 70~ of the CPI for retired personnel; (3) pay the retired employees insurance premium; and (4) converting sick leave to vacation prior to retirement. The Chairman called on Ron Fields, who was present on behalf of the city employees. Mr. Fields stated to the Commission that the employees would like the . Page 10 CS-87-02 - ` Craig A. Herndon Commission to recommend to the City Council the full benefit package for upgrading the employee's retirement. Mr. Fields also stated that a survey was conducted by the North Richland Hills Firefighter's Associat~on of all city employees in the TM1ZS retirement system. He stated that 80% of the employees were in favor of upgrading the proposed plan including the addition of the employee's contribution. Chairman Pederson asked Mr. Fields if what he meant by the entire benefit package was the employee's contribution going from 57 to 7' and upgrading the city's contribution to a(2 to 1) ratio, plus the increase in retiremetn benefits by 70' of the change in the CPI for retired employees. Mr. Field agreed. There was a general discussion of the CPI and the TI~tS retirement system. Comsnissioner Welch made the motion that Item 1 be made into two motions. Commissioner Roark seconded. Motion carried unanimously Commissioner Welch made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Roark to recommend to the city council Co raise the employee's contributing benefit from 5~ to 7~ and the city's ratio from 1~:1 to 2:1. Chairman Pederson stated he would agree to raise the employee's contribution but noC the city's ratio. Motion carried 2-1. Commissioners Welch and Roark voting for; Chairman Pederson voting against. Then a motion was made on Item 2. Commissioner Welch made the motion, seconded by Commissioner Roark to recommend that the city council not pick up the insurance premium for employees after retirement. Motion carried unanimously. There was a general discussion on Item 3, increasing the retired employees retirement benefits by 707 of the change in the CPI. Chairman Pederson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Welch that the commission recommend to the city council that the retirement benefit not be tied to a percentage of the CPI. Motion carried unanimously. There was a general discussion on Item 4, converting sick leave to vacation. Imput was heard from several ciCy employees on how it would benefit all city employees. . , Page 11 CS-87-02 - " Craig A. Herndon Chairman Pederson made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Welch to recommend to the city council to allow employees who accumulate sick leave be allowed upon retirement to convert (30) days to vacation to be used prior to retirment. Motion carried unanimously. 7. CONSIDERATION AND There was a general discussion on the Consumer Price RECOMMENDATION OF Index (CPI) to determine the cost of living far the SALARY RANGES FOR city salary ranges. 1987-88: Chairman Pederson ma.de the motion, seconded by Coffinissioner Roark to recommend to the city council the cost of living for 1987-88 be 2~. Motion carried unanimously. 8. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business the hearing was ad~ourned at 10:45 P.M. Chairman George Pederson ~ Ron McKinney, Civil Service Secretary