My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
01/31/91
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Dissolved Boards/Commissions/Committees
>
Negotiating Committee
>
Minutes
>
1991
>
01/31/91
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2025 1:56:14 PM
Creation date
7/31/2003 11:33:32 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Minutes
Document Title
Negotiating Committee
Document Date
01/31/1991
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
12) <br /> <br />13) <br /> <br />14) <br /> <br />15) <br /> <br />has used up all his sick days, vacation days and comp time and he needs a leave (3 days). <br />Does the City continue to contribute towards health coverage for the leave time. Ms. <br />McAloney stated that the City continues to contribute if the major portion of the month is <br />with pay. <br /> <br />Funeral Leave: Request for paid leave, not to be deducted from sick leave is declined for <br />reason being with 12 sick days available, there is no justification for additional time. Mr. <br />Nelson informed the Committee that funeral leave is quite commonly not deducted from <br />sick leave. <br /> <br />Union Participation in Developing Schedules: Request declined. Discussion ensued <br />regarding the scheduling. The Councilmembers felt that the Department Heads should <br />decide if flexibility is allowed in their department and the scheduling will be handled <br />between the Department Head and the Department Member. The issue of flexibility is not <br />denied, the feeling is that it's not necessary to word it in a contract; it should he handled <br />internally. It was commented that flexibility needs to be on both sides as well. <br />Councilmember Peterson stated that open communications are needed and that Council has <br />made the commitment to City Staff and to the public that we will all work together. <br /> <br />Overtime after 8 Hours: Request declined reason being that the requirements of the Fair <br />Labor Standards Act are being met. Mr. Boos stated that this particular issue is important <br />for the Public Works Department with regard to snowplowing, etc. The employees are <br />available and responsible and sometimes are out plowing for hours. If they were sick one <br />day, they were paid sick leave; however, because they hadn't actually "worked" the 40 <br />hours, they am not eligible for the overtime. The same holds true in the case of a holiday <br />or a vacation day taken in that particular week. He added that it will not end up costing the <br />City big money. The Councilmembers asked Ms. McAloney if there was a way to check <br />back to see what the cost would have been if there was overtime paid after 8 hours as <br />opposed to 40 hours. She replied that she would check on that for them. <br /> <br />Education Reimbursement: Ms McAloney stated that there have been difficult times with <br />the previous Council regarding the education policy. She feels that if the course pertains to <br />the employee's job now and the criteria is met (i.e. pre-approval by the Department Head <br />and a passing grade), for reimbursement should be considered. An education policy was <br />drafted and at the present time has not made it past the Personnel Committee for the City <br />Council to vote on it. Councilmember Hardin asked Ms. McAloney to place the policy on a <br />Personnel Committee Agenda for discussion. Councilmember Peterson asked how <br />AFSCME would look at commitment. For instance, if the City spent $10,000.00 on <br />further education for a member of the Staff, would that person be willing to commit <br />themselves to the City for a period of time. Ms. McAloney commented that the issue of <br />commitment would be difficult to enforce. Mr. Boos stated that if it's up to the Department <br />Head's discretion, they should already know whether or not that particular employee would <br />stay with the City. Ms. Rogers felt that an employee would be grateful for the education <br />reimbursement and therefore would be more apt to stay with the City. Councilmember <br />Peterson asked what if a job became available at the County, for instance, for $32,000.00 <br />and now with the further education, you were qualified to do that and the City is only <br />paying you $26,000.00. Ms. Rogers answered that the salaries have to be looked at and if <br />they are fair, there shouldn't be a problem. If the salaries are too low, the City of Ramsey <br />will remain a "training ground" with a "swinging door" policy. With regard to education <br />reimbursement, Ms. McAloney stated that the Supervisor is the first step and the Personnel <br />Committee is the next step. Councilmember Peterson added that he would like to look at a <br />copy of a commitment contract. Ms. McAloney replied that she would get one for him to <br />review. She also added that usually a maximum amount of money for education is <br /> <br />Negotiating Committee/January 31, 1991 <br /> Page 3 of 6 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.