Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 04202004 - SD4 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Jahn Sweeten Costa County Administrator DATE: April 14, 2004 ti✓ounty SUBJECT: REQUEST OF THE RETIREMENT ADMINISTRATION TO ELIMINATE ONE RETIREMENT ACCOUNTING SPECIALIST I POSITION, RESULTING IN ONE LAYOFF SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION Take no action on the request from the Administrator of the Contra Costa Employees Retirement Association to approve the layoff of one employee of the Association until the Retirement Board provides documentation of its official action to lay off this individual, or until documentation is provided of the Retirement Board's express delegation of authority to its Administrator to lay off members of its staff. BACKGROUND The County received a request from the Administrator of the Contra Costa Employees Retirement Association asking that the Board of Supervisors take action to approve the laying off of an employee of the Association'. The Memorandum of Understanding with the employee's bargaining representative requires that the County Board of Supervisors approve such a layoff. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMEN50N OE BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES). ACTION OF BOARD ON APR TT, 20, .001 APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN UNANIMOUS{ABSENT INTOM 1 AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED APRIL 20, 2M4 CONTACT: JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: By �ErUTY 1 This item was listed initially as item C.64 on the agenda for the Board of Supervisor's regular meeting of April 6,2004. It was continued by the Board pending review by the County Administrator. While Government Code §31522.1 provides that Association employees shall be County employees, it also provides that "[the board of retirement . . .] may appoint such administrative, technical, and clerical staff personnel as are required to accomplish the necessary work" of the board. By statute, therefore, the Retirement Board is the"appointing authority" for such employees. The Retirement Administrator, who is an exempt appointee of the Retirement Board, supervises and directs the activities of the staff of the Retirement Association. She does so under the general direction of the Retirement Board. In that capacity, she has made a determination that workload changes justify an adjustment of Association staffing. That decision, because it affects the budget of the Association and its ability to discharge its fiduciary obligations to members, is a decision that is inherently legislative in nature. As a result, our view is that the requested action requires the formal express approval of the Retirement Board to be valid. To the extent that the Retirement Association has attempted to delegate to the Retirement Administrator the authority to lay off Association employees, that delegation may or may not be proper. At the least, your Board is entitled to documentation of such authority, should it exist, prior to taping action to effectuate by its approval the Association's prior action. In the absence of documentation of the Retirement Association's formal express approvalof the subject layoff, or-- in the alternative--documentation of a proper delegation of authority to the Retirement Administrator to make such determinations, the Board of Supervisors is in no position to act on the Association's request because it has no knowledge directly or through its administrative staff of the circumstances that would justify the requested action. Should your Board concur in the above-recommended action, a request for documentation will be forwarded to the Retirement Board so that this matter may be concluded. 2 Contra Human Resources Costa ,: Department a Administration Bldg. 651 Pine Street County , _ Martinez, California 94553-1292 DATE: April 20, 2004 TO: Board of Supervisors FROM: LeslieKnight, Assistant County Administrator-Director of Human Resources RE. Retirement Office Proposed Layoff SUMMARY The actions taken by the Retirement Office in relation to the proposed layoff of one (1) Retirement Accounting Specialist 1 adhered to the layoff provisions of the 1999-2005 AFSCME Local 2700 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). BACKGROUND On April 6, 2004, this office was asked to review all of the issues related to the proposed layoff of one (1) employee in the Retirement Office, to determine that the actions taken were in accordance with the AFSCME Local 2700 MOU. The Retirement Office has requested to lay off one (1) Retirement Accounting Specialist 1, currently held by Ms. Lissa Weare. The Retirement Office advises this layoff was necessitated by a lack of work in the Accounting Unit of the Retirement Office. Ms. Weare is the least senior employee in the affected classification. DISCUSSION AFSCME Local 2700 MOU Section 11.2(A) -- Grounds for Layoff, provides that a permanent employee may be laid off due to lack of work. Effective June 1, 2003, the master custodian bank for the Contra Costa County Employees Retirement Association (CCCERA) changed from Deutsche Bank Global Security Services to State Street Corporation. This change led to a streamlining for recording transactions. The Accounting Unit, of which Ms. Weare is part, handled the transaction recording function of CCCERA. Page 1 of 4 In response to the streamlining of transaction recording, Mr. Rick Koehler, Retirement Accounting Manager, reviewed the workload of the employees in the Accounting Unit and determined that there was no longer a sufficient amount of work for the nine (9) Retirement Accounting Specialists. Prior to his review, Mr. Koehler states that he was approached by employees asking for additional duties as their current assignments frequently left them with little or nothing to do. On March 10, 2004, Mr. Koehler recommended to Ms. Pat Wiegert, Retirement Administrator, that due to lack of work in the Accounting Unit, one (1) Retirement Accounting Specialist would need to be laid off. Ms. Wiegert accepted Mr. Koehler's recommendation. The Retirement Office requested a seniority list from Human Resources and determined that Ms. Weare, who was hired in February 2002, was the least senior person in the Retirement Accounting Specialist classification. AFSCME Local 2700 MOU section 11.2(8) - Order of Layoff, requires that the order of layoff in a department be based on inverse seniority in the class of positions from which the layoff is occurring, with the least senior person being laid off first. On March 10, 2004, Toni Warren, Retirement Office Manager, contacted Ms.. Lisa Stephenson, Management Analyst, in the Labor Relations Unit, regarding the proposed layoff. Ms. Stephenson advised that pursuant to AFSCME Local 2700 MOU Section 11.1(g) — Workforce Reduction, the Union would need to be notified of the pending layoff and a meet and confer on the impact would need to be scheduled. On March 11 , 2004, Ms. Stephenson contacted AFSCME Local 2700 Business Agent Mr. Jim Hicks and informed him that Ms. Weare would be laid off effective March: 31, 2004. Mr. Hicks was also informed that Ms. Weare would be put on paid administrative leave effective March 12, 2004 through the date of the layoff. The Retirement Office had concluded 'that paid administrative leave was appropriate because of the lack of work for Ms. Weare to perform and that this paid time off could be used by Ms. Weare to find another position. During the March 11, 2004 conversation with Mr. Hicks, he expressed concerns over whether the proposed layoff would be acted on by the Board of Supervisors, as the AFSCME Local 2700 MOU requires, or the Retirement Board, which is the governing body of the Retirement Office. On March 12, 2004, Ms. Weare was issued a Notice of Layoff, per MOU Section 11.3 — Notice, which requires that notice of a pending layoff be given to the employee at least ten (10) work days prior to the layoff. The notice stated that the layoff would be effective March 31, 2004. Ms. Weare was also put in contact with Mage 2 of 4 the Tactical Employment Team {TBT} which assists laid off employees in finding other available County positions, were applicable. On March 19, 2004, Ms. Stephenson spoke with Deputy County Counsel Kevin Kerr, regarding Mr. Hicks's concerns over which governing body would act on the layoff. Mr. Kerr advised that the best scenario would be for both the Retirement Board and the Board of Supervisor to take action. Human Resources was informed that the Retirement Office decided to advise the Retirement Board of the pending layoff and to request that the Board of Supervisors approve the layoff as required by the AFSCMB MOU, thus moving the effective date of the layoff until April 6, 2004. Ms. Weare's paid administrative leave was extended by the Retirement Office to that date. On March 26, 2004, Mr. Koehler met and conferred with Mr. Hicks regarding the impact of the pending layoff as required by the MOU. At that meeting, the Retirement Office agreed to extend Ms. Weare's paid administrative leave until April 15, 2004. The resolution to authorize the proposed layoff was placed on the April 6, 2004 Board of Supervisor's agenda for consideration. The Board did not vote on the issue and instead requested that the Human Resources Department review the actions taken by the Retirement Office in relation to the layoff of Ms. Weare. On April 12, 2004, a meeting was conducted with Mr. Jim Hicks and Human Resources. Mr. Hicks acknowledged that the terms of the MOU, as it pertains to the procedures required for a layoff, were adhered to in the layoff of Ms. Weare. Mr. Hicks expressed concerns that the layoff language was being used to achieve the termination of Ms. Weare. Mr. Hicks asserted that the lack of work experienced by Ms. Weare was intentional, that in fact work was taken away from her and given to others. Mr. Hicks also stated that the other employees in the Accounting Unit have not seen their workload reduced as claimed by Mr. Koehler. Further, Mr. Hicks stated that Mr. Koehler had been overheard making comments about Ms. Weare's "days being numbered" in the Retirement Office. Mr. Hicks asserted that if Mr. Koehler or any of the managers at the Retirement Office had concerns over Ms. Weare's performance, it should have been addressed through the disciplinary process or through the evaluation process, not through a layoff. Mr. Hicks believes that the paid administrative leave further points to the fact that Ms. Weare's layoff is a disciplinary termination. Page 3 of 4 On April 15, 2004, Human Resources met with Ms. Wiegert and Mr. Koehler from the Retirement Office. Ms. Wiegert and Mr. Koehler were advised of the concerns raised by Mr. Hicks. Ms. Wiegert reasserted the retirement Office's position that the layoff was due to a lack of work, not a veiled attempt to terminate an employee. Ms. Wiegert also stated that the paid administrative leave was provided to Ms. Weare to allow her time to look for a new position and to provide her with an income during her job search. Mr. Koehler stated that Ms. Weare did receive a letter of reprimand for performance issues in November 2003 but since that time, her performance had been satisfactory. Mr. Koehler denied making comments pertaining to Ms. Weare's "days being numbered" in the Retirement Office. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Wiegert expressed her desire that Board of Supervisors tape action on the proposed layoff of Ms. Weare in order to avoid a possible violation of the AFSCME MOU. CONCLUSION The Board of Supervisors has asked if the actions taken in regard to Ms. Weare's layoff were consistent with the AFSCME Local 2700 MOU. There does not appear to be any disagreement from either the Union or from the Retirement Office that all contractual obligations pertaining to the layoff were adhered to. The actions taken by the Retirement Office in relation to the process required to effectuate the proposed layoff of Ms. Weare were consistent with the MOU provisions that pertain to layoffs. LTK/LS Page 4 of 4